li  E IMJ  R T 


UPON  THE 


THIRD  SUBDIVISION  OF  THB  CENTRAL  TRANSPORTATION  I 

ROUTE, 


FDOAI 


THE  OHIO  OR  KANAWHA  RIVER  TO  TIDE-WATER  IN  VIRGINIA, 


IN  OMAHGK  OF 


WM.  P.  ORA^IOHILL 

MA.TOK  OF  ENGINEERS,  UVT.  LIEFT.  COLONEE,  U.  S.  A.; 


BEING 


APPENDIX  V 


OF  THE 


ANNUAL  REPORT  OP  THE  CHIEF  OP  ENGINEERS  FOR  1877. 


WASHINGTON: 

aoVKBNMBNT  FEINTING  OFFICE. 
1877. 


\X^ E'rv^\Y\ee<^  , 

EE POET 


UPON  THE 


THIRD  SUBDIVISION  OF  THE  CENTRAL  TRANSPORTATION 

ROUTE, 


FROAI 


THE  OHIO  OR  KANAWHA  RIVER  TO.  TIDE-WATER  IN  VIRGINIA, 


IN  CHARGE  OF 


WM.  I>.  CR^AiamiLlL, 

MAJOR  OF  ENGINEERS,  BVT.  LIEUT.  COLONEL,  U.  B.  A.; 


BEING 


APPENDIX  V 


OF  THE 


ANNUAL  REPORT  OF  THE  CHIEF  OF  ENGINEERS  FOR  1877 


WASHIJIGTONT: 

GOVERNMENT  PRINTING  OFFICE. 
1877. 


' "n 


■ ['-'1 


'( 


.1 ' ■ 


) 


\ 


E 


V 


■:? 


\ 


I 


^ 'i*r;  rC)i:j;r^ 


H;:: 


'^1 


3^ 


/ 


'i 


u 

a 

0 

4) 

Ul 


UT.\ 


[EXTRACT  FROM  THE  ANNUAL  REPORT  OF  THE  CHIEF  OF  ENGINEERS  TO 
THE  SECRETARY  OF  WAR.] 

Office  of  the  Chief  of  Engineers, 

Washington^  D.  C.,  October  12,  1877. 

TRANSPORTATION-ROUTES  TO  THE  SEABOARD. 

The  surveys  of  the  third  subdivision  of  the  central  route,  designated 
as — 

A connection  by  canal  or  a freight-railway  from  the  Ohio  or  Kanawha  River,  near 
Charleston,  by  the  shortest  and  most  practicable  route  through  West  Virginia  to  tide- 
water in  Virginia — 

were  made,  in  compliance  with  the  provisions  of  the  act  of  June  23, 
1874,  under  the  supervision  of  Maj.  William  P.  Craighill,  Corps  of  Engi- 
neers, who  submitted  a final  report,  dated  November  10, 1876. 

This  report  was  printed  as  Executive  Document  No.  15,  Senate, 
Forty-fourth  Congress,  second  session.' 

(See  also  Appendix  Y.) 

#**#*#* 


O 


r~ 


APPENDIX  V. 


REPORTS  ON  TRANSPORTATION-ROUTES  TO  THE  SEA- 
BOARD. 

THIRD  DIVISION  OF  THE  CENTRAL  TRANSPORTATION-ROUTE. 

United  States  Engineer  Office, 

Baltimore,  Md.,  Novemher  10,  1876. 

General  : Early  in  June,  1874,  instructions  were  received  from  you, 
from  which  the  following  extract  is  made  : 

The  river  and  harbor  act,  approved  June  23, 1874,  contains  an  appropriation  for  sur- 
veys and  estimates  for  the  improvements  recommended  by  the  Senate  Committee  on 
Transportation-Routes  to  the  Seaboard  upon  four  routes  indicated  in  the  report  of  said 
committee,  to  be  expended  in  such  manner  as  will  secure  the  greatest  amount  of  exact 
information  for  each  of  said  routes. 

The  survey  of  that  portion  of  the  central  route  designated  as  ‘^a  connection  by  canal, 
or  a freight-railway,  from  the  Ohio  River  or  Kanahwa  River,  near  Charleston,  by  the 
shortest  and  most  practicable  route  through  West  Virginia,  to  tide-water  in  Virginia,” 
is  assigned  to  you. 

A prelimiuary  report  was  submitted  January  13,  1875.  Reports  on 
the  subject  of  the  proposed  freight-railway  will  be  found  therewith  from 
Mr.  H.  D.  Whitcomb  and  Mr.  C.  P.  Manning.  No  additional  informa- 
tion has  been  since  procured  as  to  the  freight-railway. 

The  surveys  for  the  water-line  were  made  in  1874,  under  the  personal 
supervision  of  Lieut.  Thomas  Turtle,  Corps  of  Engineers,  and  Mr.  N.  H. 
Hutton,  assistant  engineer.  No  reports  from  these  gentlemen  accom- 
panied the  report  of  January  13, 1875,  for  reasons  therein  stated.  Since 
that  time  the  preparation  of  maps,  estimates,  &c.,  has  been  carried  on 
in  connection  with  the  current  labors  of  this  office.  In  these  labors 
Lieutenant  Maguire,  Corps  of  Engineers,  assisted  Lieutenant  Turtle 
most  zealously  until  his  detail  to  the  staff  of  General  Terry,  for  service 
in  the  Indian  country.  It  is  not  considered  necessary  to  introduce  here 
the  names  of  all  the  gentlemen  who  assisted  so  efficiently  in  the  surveys 
and  in  the  office,  as  they  are  placed  upon  the  maps. 

Quite  full  reports  from  Lieutenant  Turtle  and  Mr.  Hutton  are  hereto 
appended,  accompanied  by  estimates  in  detail  and  illustrative  maps  and 
other  drawings.  These  relate  to  the  summit  division,  the  Greenbrier 
division,  and  the  New  River  division. 

A location  for  the  long  tunnel  at  the  summit  was  made  by  Mr.  Will- 
iam R.  Hutton  in  1870.  When  this  subject  was  under  consideration 
by  the  Board  of  Engineers  of  1874,  of  wliich  Bvt.  Maj.  Gen.  J.  G.  Bar- 
nard, colonel  of  engineers,  was  president,  he  suggested  the  examination 
of  a tunnel-line  from  Brush  Creek  to  Howard’s  Creek,  or  to  the  Green- 
brier River,  for  reasons  stated  bv  him.  Surveys  of  both  these  lines 
w^ere  made  under  Lieutenant  Turtle’s  immediate  supervision.  His  inter- 
esting report  and  maps  indicate  the  details  of  the  surveys  and  the  re- 
sults. 

He  discusses  quite  fully  the  cross-section,  interior  arrangement,  ven- 
tilation, &c.,  of  the  tunnel,  the  methods  of  towing  by  animal-power  or 
by  steam,  the  use  of  a chain  or  cable  in  towing,  the  kind  of  fuel,  the 
passage  of  boats  singly  or  in  fleets,  the  elevation  of  the  tunnel  above 


676 


REPORT  OF  THE  CHIEF  OF  ENGINEERS. 


tide,  the  advantages  of  the  several  locations  as  to  shafting,  &c.,  the 
debouches,  the  rate  of  execution,  the  arrangements  for  feeding,  &c. 

Surveys  were  also  made,  under  Lieutenant  Turtle’s  supervision,  down 
the  Greenbrier  River,  resulting  in  locations  and  estimates  for  a slack- 
water  navigation  or  an  independent  canal. 

The  survey  of  the  New  River  division  was  made  under  the  personal 
direction  of  Mr.  N.  H.  Hutton,  with  a view  to  a location  and  estimates 
for  slack-water  navigation,  as  well  as  for  an  independent  canal.  The 
* shortening  of  the  line  by  cut-off  tunnels  was  also  considered. 

For  the  cost  of  the  enlargement  of  the  James  River  Canal  from  Rich- 
mond to  its  present  terminus,  (Buchanan,)  and  its  proposed  extension 
thence  to  the  mouth  of  Fork  Run,  according  to  the  location  of  Mr.  Lor- 
raine, reliance  is  still  placed  upon  the  estimates  qf  Mr.  W.  G.  Turpin,  an 
abstract  of  which  will  be  found  in  the  report  on  the  water-line  of  Jan- 
uary 27, 187  L The  detailed  estimates  of  Mr.  Turpin  are  appended  hereto. 

In  the  report  of  January  13,  1875,  brief  mention  was  made  of  the 
Great  Kanawha  River  as  a part  of  the  central  water-line.  In  March, 
1875,  there  was  an  appropriation  by  Congress  of  8300,000  for  its  im- 
provement, and  a second  one  of  $270,000,  August  14, 1876.  A special 
report  on  that  improvement,  by  the  superintending  engineer,  dated  April 
30,  1875,  and  a report  of  a Board  of  Engineers,  dated  May  25, 1875,  may 
be  found  in  part  2 of  the  Annual  Report  of  the  Chief  of  Engineers  for 
1875,  beginning  at  page  89. 

The  work  contracted  for  under  the  appropriations  mentioned  above, 
is  in  pursuance  of  the  plan  of  improvement  recommended  by  the  Board, 
viz,  of  large  locks,  with  movable  dams,  from  the  mouth  of  the  river  to 
Paint  Creek,  and  permanent  dams  at  and  above  that  point. 

A good  map  of  the  Kanawha  has  been  in  existence  for  some  years, 
made  by  Mr.  Byers,  from  his  own  surveys  in  1856.  Other  examinations 
have  been  made  of  portions  of  the  river,  by  Ellet,  Gill,  Lorraine,  and 
others.  In  1873  and  1874,  special  additional  surveys  were  made  by  Mr. 
A.  M.  Scott,  whose  report  is  herewith,  accompanied  by  estimates.  A 
special  report  by  Mr.  William  R.  Hutton  is  also  appended. 

The  following  is  a summary  of  the  estimates  taken  from  the  appended 
reports : 

Mr.  Turpin’s  estimate  for  enlarging  the  existing  James  River  Canal  as  far 
as  Buchanan,  its  present  terminus,  and  for  constructing  extension  thence 
to  the  mouth  of  Fork  Run,  according  to  the  location  of  Mr.  Lorraine,  is.  $14,781,  000 


Deduct  cost  of  lock  and  ship-lock  at  Richmond 1,  300,  000 


Total  from  Richmond  to  east  end  summit  division 13,  481,  000 

Summit  division,  Lieutenant  Turtle’s  estimate 16,  387,  000 

Anthony’s  Creek  reservoir,  Lorraine’s  estimate 300,  000 

Total  from  Richmond  to  '^est  end  of  summit  division 30, 168,  000 

For  the  slack-water  project,  Greenbrier  division,  Lieutenant  Turtle 6,  251,  000 

New  River,  Mr.  Hutton 11,  427,  000 

Removing  bowlders  in  New  River,  Mr.  Harris'’^ 260,  000 

Kanawha  division 4, 000,  000 


Total 52, 106,  000 


^ The  total  estimate  of  Mr.  Harris  for  removing  bowlders  from  the  bed  of 


New  River  is $307,  385 

From  this,  in  order  to  know  the  proper  sum  to  be  added  to  Mr.  Hutton’s 
slack- water  estimate,  must  be  deducted  the  amount  estimated  as  necessary 
for  clearing  the  river  in  places  where  the  line  is  not  located  in  the  open 
river.  This  amount  is 46,875 

Total 260,  510 


APPENDIX  V. 


677 


For  tbe  independent  canal : 

From  Richmond  to  west  end  of  summit  division,  as  before $30, 168,  000 

Greenbrier  divisioy,  Lieutenant  Turtle - 4,  765,  000 

New  River  division,  Mr.  Hutton . 20, 650, 000 

Kanawha  division 4,  000, 000 

Total 59,  583, 000 


The  estimates  are  very  full,  and  it  may  be  confidently  expected  that 
the  cost  of  the  work,  if  executed,  will  be  less  than  the  estimate,  if  money 
be  provided  as  fast  as  needed  for  economical  progress.* 

Should  this  water-line  ever  be  opened,  it  would  doubtless  only  be  after 
a careful  revision  of  the  whole  subject  by  a board  of  engineers.  It  seems 
superfluous,  therefore,  to  do  more  now  than  put  on  record  a few  general 
statements. 

The  careful  surveys  and  estimates  made  since  the  report  of  the  board 
of  engineers,  dated  March  18,  1874,  prove  the  correctness  of  the  opinion 
expressed  in  the  following  resolution,  unanimously^  agree;l  to  : 

Resolved,  That,  in  the  opinion  of  this  board,  it  is  entirely  practicable  to  connect  th& 
waters  of  the  James  and  Ohio  Rivers  by  a water-navigation  of  seven  feet  depth. 

It  will  be  interesting  also  to  recur  to  another  resolution  of  the  same 
board,  which  was  agreed  to  by  four  of  its  five  members : 

Resolved,  That,  in  the  opinion  of  this  Board,  the  water-line  by  the  James  River  and 
Kanawha  route,  with  seven  feet  depth,  may  be  completed  in  six  years  at  a cost  of  not 
more  than  $60,000,000,  allowing  an  unusually  broad  margin  for  contingencies  which 
cannot  be  accurately  measured.  The  cost  may  be  reasonably  expected  to  be  within 
$55,000,000,  and  possibly  will  not  exceed  $50,000,000. 

The  existence  of  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Eailroad  has  added  greatly 
to  the  estimated  cost  of  the  water-line.  The  building  of  another  railroad 
along  the  New  and  Greenbrier  Eivers  would  probably  make  the  cost  of 
the  water-line  so  great  as  to  be  prohibitory  of  its  construction. 

As  attention  has  been  directed  to  the  line  of  the  Chesapeake  and 
Ohio  Canal,  as  a proposed  substitute  for  the  central  water-line  by  way 
of  the  James,  Greenbrier,  New,  and  Kanawha  Eivers,  it  seemed  proper 
to  compare  the  two  as  to  their  respective  features.  Accordingly  Lieu- 
tenant Turtle  has,  at  my  request,  prepared  a comparative  statement, 
which  is  appended  hereto. 

Objection  having  been  made  by  some  parties  to  the  proposed  improve- 
ment of  the  Ohio  Eiver  by  locks  and  dams,  and  the  same  having  nearly 
as  much  pertinence  to  the  similar  improvements  of  the  Great  Kanawha 
Eiver,  a forcible  reply  thereto  (devoid  of  professional  technicalities  and 
therefore  suited  to  the  people  generally)  is  appended  hereto,  which  ap- 
peared in  the  columns  of  the  Pittsburgh  Commercial. 

The  original  report  of  McNeil,  of  1828,  on  the  water-line,  must  always 
be  of  great  interest  and  value  in  the  study  of  the  subject  of  which  it 
treats.  As  it  is  nearly  unobtainable  at  present,  a copy  is  appended  to 
this  report,  in  the  hope  that  it  may  thus  be  put  again  in  print.  For  the 
same  reason  are  added  copies  of  special  reports  on  the  Great  Kanawha, 
by  Mr.  John  A.  Byers,  dated  February  1 and  10,  1868,  and  copies  of  re- 
ports in  January  and  October,  1852,  by  Mr.  E.  Lorraine,  on  his  survey 
of  the  summit-level. 

The  United  States  having  begun  the  improvement  of  the  Great  Kana- 
wha Eiver  by  locks  and  dams,  it  should  not  be  forgotten  that  certain  rights 
and  privileges  have  been  granted,  under  the  laws  of  Virginia  and  West 
Virginia,  to  a board  or  company,  relative  to  the  improvement  of  the 

^ The  details  of  the  estimates  are  omitted,  but  are  to  be  found  in  the  records  of  the 
Engineer  Bureau,  with  the  maps  and  note-books  relating  to  this  subject. 


678 


REPORT  OF  THE  CHIEF  OF  ENGINEERS. 


Kanawlia,  tlie  collectiou  of  tolls  on  navigation,  &c.  Copies  of  these 
laws,  &c.,  as  far  as  known  to  me,  are  herewith. 

In  this  connection,  the  enactment  is  suggested  for  airplication  to  the 
Kanawha  of  a law  similar  in. its  provisions  to  the  act  of  Congress  ap- 
proved March  3,  1875,  to  aid  in  the  improvement  of  the  Fox  and  Wis- 
consin Rivers  in  the  State  of  Wisconsin,”  of  which  a copy  is  herewith. 

Very  much  has  been  written  concerning  the  central  water-line.  Those 
who  wish  to  study  the  subject  are  advised  to  consult,  in  addition  to  the 
papers  appended  hereto,  the  following,  which  are  in  print : 

1.  Report  dated  January  27, 1871,  and  attached  papers  ; (see  Ex.  Doc. 
No.  110,  House  of  Representatives,  Forty-first  Congress,  third  session  ;) 
also,  printed  in  part  in  Annual  Report  of  Chief  of  Engineers,  1871,  begin- 
ning at  page  624. 

2.  Reports,  dated  December  12, 1872,  and  April  11, 1873.  (See  Annual 
Report  of  Chief  of  Engineers,  1873,  beginning  at  page  828.) 

3.  Report  dated  March  18,  1874.  (See  Annual  Report  of  Chief  of  En- 
gineers, 1874,  part  2,  beginning  at  page  86.) 

4.  Report  of  the  select  Committee  on  Transportation-Routes  to  the 
Seaboard,  with  appendix  and  evidence,  being  Senate  Report  307,  parts 
1,  2,  and  3,  Forty-third  Congress,  first  session., 

5.  From  page  87  to  98,  part  2,  Annual  Report  of  Chief  of  Engineers, 
1875. 

6.  Report  of  January  13,  1875,  printed  in  Senate  Ex.  Doc.  19,  part  2, 
Forty-third  Congress,  second  session,  and  in  the  Annual  Report  of  the 
Chief  of  Engineers  for  1875,  part  2,  beginning  at  page  631. 

7.  Ellet^s  report  on  the  Great  Kanawha,  1858. 

8.  Annual  Report  of  the  Chief  of  Engineers  for  1876. 

Repectfully  submitted. 

Wm.  P.  Craighill, 

Major  of  Engineers. 

Brig.  Gen.  A.  A.  Hu3IPHREYS, 

Chief  of  Engineers^  JJ.  S.  A. 


COMPARATIVE  STATEMENT  OF  DISTANCES,  ETC.,  RELATIVE  TO  THE  CENTRAL  WATER- 
LINE AND  THE  CHESAPEAKE  AND  OHIO  CANAL,  BY  LIEUTENANT  THOMAS  TURTLE, 

CORPS  OF  ENGINEERS. 

Baltimore,  Md.,  August  16,  1876. 

Major  : According  to  yonr  request,  I submit  the  following  comparative  statement 
of  distances,  &c.,  relative  to  the  central  water-line  and  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio 
Canal. 

The  horizontal  distances  are  from  the  following  authorities  : 

Richmond  to  City  Point. — Coast  Survey  map. 

City  Point  to  Newport  News.  ^ 

Newport  News  to  Capes.  | 

Newjjort  News  to  Georgetown,  y State  map  of  Virginia. 

Newport  News  to  Baltimore.  | 

Georgetown  to  Baltimore.  J 

Point  Pleasant  to  Richmond. — From  the  various  surveys  and  reports  of  the  James 
River  and  Kanawha  Canal ; of  the  central  water-line,  and  reports  on  the  Kanawha. 

Pittsburgh  to  Georgetown. — Reports  on  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal. 

Pittsburgh  to  Cairo. — Reports  on  Ohio  River. 

Cairo  to  Saint  Paul. — Reports  on  Mississippi  River,  and  report  of  Senate  Committee 
on  Transportation. 

Cleveland  to  Portsmouth. — From  report  of  Senate  Committee  on  Transportation. 


Table  No.  l.—Showing  horizontal  distances  between  certain  points  via  central  water-line  and  via  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal. 


AIPENDIX  V. 


679 


•|BnBO  TrnB 
-TJ^  BIA  pOB^AO^O 

1 iO 

1 ^ 

0 10 

^ 0 

T?^  0 

lO  10 

CC  1-^ 

CC  Cl 

•H  0 

1139.5 

1095.  5 

lO  < 

2 i 

. 10 

I 05  0 I 

1 0 rc  » 

• 05  CO  • 

05 

CO 

CO 

0 

cc 

•oiqo 

977.6 

10  CO 

rH  ^ 

C30  00 

Oi  CO 

10  lO 

00  0 

CO  CO 

CO  CO 

lO  CO 

^ GO 

Cl  Cl 

CO  GO 

10  i 

t-  » 

....... 

514.  4 

563 

05 

GO 

• A\  ‘ganqeaaj^j'B,! 

968.5 

CO 

0 lO 

0 t- 
0 CO 

lO  10 

tA 

CJ  lO 

CO  CO 

0 AO 

§ 2 

CO  00 

lO  i 

g : 

523.5 

554 

CO 

00 

0 

00 

•a9AT^  Sion 
-^11  uiA  ogBoiqo 

0 

01 

2311 

1836.1 

2018 

1811.5 

0 

d> 

TJ-  i- 

0 05 

d 1-1 

CO  * 

d I 

• 10  I 

• CO  , 

• GO  r-*  • 

lO 

0 

1C 

0 

d 

•nniH  ‘itiB  j 7niBS 

2530.  6 

2654.  6 

2237.  6 

2419. 6 

2153 

2445.  5 

2381 

S : 
^ ; 

• 10 

» IfS  Ci 
. 0 r 

• Cl 

• Cl  G 

3 I 

-i  • 

1925 

d 

CO 

tH 

■sjAi 

‘nOITIO  tip  9TJTBJ<I 

2317.  6 

2509.  6 

2024.6 

2206.6 

2000 

10 

z 

Cl 

Cl  c 

1 

1 

2552.  5 

• 0 • 

Id  ec  ; 

• 10  0 • 

• 0 05  • 

• d t-H  • 

d 

05 

d 

•ni  ‘pnBisi  3[00a; 

2141.6 

2323.  6 

1848.6 

2030.  6 

1764 

2056.  5 

1992 

2076.  5 

• lO  I 

led  I 

• r-  Cl  1 

• 00  r-  1 

CO 

0 

1253 

•J9ATa; 

sio^nil  JO  q^tiojf 

1810.6 

1992.  6 

1.517.  6 

1699.  6 

1493 

1725.  5 

1661 

1745.5 

1545.  5 

1396 

1205  1 

Cl 

Cl 

05 

■OR  ‘etnoT;  jnreg 

1769.6 

1951.6 

1476.  6 

1658.  6 

1452 

1684.  5 

1620 

1704.  5 

i 10  » 

uc  I 
• 0 lO  • 

•10  CO  • 

1164  1 

00 

00 

•ni  ‘oai^O 

1569.6 

1751.6 

1276.6 

1458.6 

1252 

1484.5 

1420 

1504.  5 

i 0 

I ic 

• 00  ir. 

• CC  1- 

) • 

5 J 

CO 

05 

00 

CO 

■^3  ‘giliAStnoT; 

1205.  5 

1385.6 

910.6 

1092.6 

886 

1118.5 

1054.5 

1138.5 

I lo  I 

» GO  05  • 

• -H  00  • 

•05  1-  • 

§ 

10 

ic 

CO 

•oiqo  ‘ijBnniouTQ 

1071.  5 

1253.  6 

778.6 

960.6 

754.5 

987.5 

922.5 

1007.  5 

; 0 I 

led  r-  I 

• GO  ITS  • 

• t-  CO  1 

l- 

CO 

CO 

00 

•oiqo  ‘qJnol^s:^JO(J 

978.  6 

1166.  6 

685.  6 



867.6 

661.5 

873.5 

829.6 

893.5 

; ic  i 

. cd  Tf*  . 

•05  CO  • 

•CO  xo  • 

cc 

lO 

cc 

0 

05 

•«A 

‘M.  ‘jtresBai,! 

888.5 

1070.5 

595.  54 

........ 

777.  5 

571.5 

783.5 

739.  6 

803.5 

1 0 • 

• CC  • 

• 0 1-  • 

• CO  1 

fC 

CO 

Cl 

•Bj  ‘Sjnq87?Ta; 

1151.5 

807.5 

858.  6 

514.  5 

834.5 

520.  5 

1009  fi 

> 

t 

540.5 

i XO  • 

. 0 • 

• '•r  r:i  • 

•CO  r-  * 

•BA  ‘pnoniqDTH 

10 

0 

5J 

0 

C5 

lO 

10 

d 

i 1 ir 

• 1 ^ 

1 • t' 

• 1 c 

: • 

i I 

’0  -a;  ‘uAiojaSjoaf) 

t- 

-0 

0 

GO 

0 

■pn  ‘Ovtouii^iBa 

lO 

Cl 

CO 

00 

CO 

•8M.9j!l  !|J0d.U.9j^  j 

t-- 

Cl 

•BmigjiA  JO  S9dB3  1 

^5 

a 

Oi 

•A!qo  qaoA  .S4.9JSI;  j 

: 

eS  03 
-fj  a 


o 

OD 

© p 

CQ  2 

© CT 


® © 
73  -(J 

'w’E* 


.20  § 

atSo 

.251 

2 

p a 
« ^ 


.s  +=0 


© 

.a 

'S  c.i> 

® © p 
43  0.0 

®.S 

® 

P»3®  .2 

%as 

5§  2 i 
<s.t3  _ 
^ ® 
® ^.2 
w-r* 

2-2  g 

® p, 


® ® >. 
b> 

P O ^ 
OPS 


680 


REPORT  OF  THE  CHIEF  OF  ENGINEERS. 


Table  No.  2 shows  the  total  lift  (ascending  and  descending)  between  certain  points. 


Table  No.  2. 

Feet. 

Pittsburgh  to  Georgetown  via  ChesaiDeake  and  Ohio  Canal,  about 3, 187 

Point  Pleasant  to  Pittsburgh 495 

Parkersburg  to  Pittsburgh 138.6 

Marrietta  to  Pittsburgh 13*2. 2 

Point  Pleasant  to  Richmond 2,911 

Point  Pleasant  to  Parkersburg 48.  5 

Point  Pleasant  to  Marietta 55.3 


Table  No.  3 shows  the  equated  distances  between  those  points  affected  by  the  two 
lines,  (Central,  and  Chesapeake  and  Ohio.) 

The  Central  is  intended,  at  the  outset,  to  be  operated  by  steam.  The  experiences  of 
the  William  Baxter  steam  canal-boat  on  the  Erie  Canal  indicate  that  with  steam  one 
minute  to  each  foot  of  lift  is  an  ample  allowance  of  time  in  equating  distance,  and 
such  boats,  when  freed  from  the  petty  and  unjustifiable  annoyances  and  hinderances 
put  upon  them  by  horse-boats,  will  be  able  to  make  three  miles  an  hour  when  fully 
under  way,  without  injury  to  the  banks. 

I estimate  that  the  summit-tunnel  of  the  Central  line  (single  width,  with  turnouts 
for  fleets)  will  cause  an  average  delay  of  19^  miles — say  20  miles. 

Colonel  Sedgwick  estimates  that  the  use  of  the  proposed  planes  on  the  Chesapeake 
and  Ohio  will  save  52  miles  in  equated  distance.  On  the  basis  supplied  by  the  above, 
the  equated  distances  of  Table  3 are  compiled.  The  horizontal  distances  corrected  for 
lift  are  increased  by  20  miles  for  the  Central  line  and  diminished  by  50  miles  for  the 
Chesapeake  and  Ohio,  the  2 miles  additional  saved  by  the  planes  being  supposed  to  be 
lost  in  the  summit-level. 


Table  No.  3. — Showing  equated  distances  hetiveen  certain  points  via  central  watci'-line  and  via  Chesapea'ke  and  Ohio  Canal. 


APPENDIX  V. 


681 


BIA  paB[9A8{0 

ii  s 

1267.  5 

1083 

127.3.  5 

1251 

1293.  5 

1093.  5 

985.6 

in 

i 

•otqo 

00  00 

i!  s 

T}<  00 

i = 

rp  X 

I i 

i 

i i 

CO 

i 

X 

rH- 

CO 

"KA  'jA  ‘SJuqsiaqjBj 

1126.4 

1106 

8.33.  4 

2 § 

X X 

X 

i s 

X 

i 

X 

i g 

1 

•j;9Ai^3; 

stounni  BiA  oSBDtqo 

0 10 

ii  i 

i 

Ol 

§ ^ 
o?  55 

2 

I 1 

i 

to 

I 

•nntiY  ‘[UB  j luiBg 

0 ro 

X •n*  Ci 

ox  cc 

Cl  Cl  Cl 

CO  a 
to  CO 

to  CO 

Cl  Cl 

to 

C5 

to  CO 

to  to 

0?  Cl 

to 

c: 

t- 

ci 

to  CO 

CO  rr* 

Cl  Cl 

to 

CO 

Cl 

Cl 

cd 

■stAi 

‘naiqo  up  emBij 

10 

0 

CO  X 

0 — 

CICK  CM 

to 

cd  CO 

3!  to 
d d 

to 

cd 

rfi  c? 

CO  CO 

Cl 

0 

CO 

Cl 

CO 

CO  cc 

^ 0 

Cl  Cl 

to 

cd 

§5 

•III  ‘pu^isi  qooH 

to 

00 

0 lO  0 

Cl  ^ 0 

d Cl  Cl 

TT  0 

CO  X 

— C: 

Oi  ^ 

to 

0 X 

Cl  Cl 

to 

CO 

Cl 

CO 

§ s 

CO  X 

rH  T— 1 

to 

0 

to 

CO 

to 

Cl 

•J9AtJJ 

SToaini  jo'  qjnoj^ 

to 

d 

c;  — ^ 

cd  C5 

CO  •T 

X CO 

to 

ci  1- 

CO  rH 

X X 

to 

to 

X 

to  CO 

Co  rH 

to  to 

CO 

§ 

Cl 

Cl 

c- 

"OR  ‘eiiioq;  jniBg 

LO 

10  CO  Cl 

C?  X CO 

Sg  s 

to 

oi  QL 

C5  0 

i-  CO 

X CO 

C5 

p-  t- 

to 

x' 

X 

to  CO 

22  ® 

0 to 

cd 

CO 

X 

X 

•III 

to  cd  c? 

CJ  X CO 

X 

to 

d X 

^ 0 

to 

X CO 

a 

to  to 

to 

GO 

to  CO 

00  0 

CO 

to 

00 

CO 

CO 

X 

CO 

•A3  ‘ani^-sinoT; 

m 

C5  0 CO 

i-C  d CO 

CO  iO  0 

to 

cd  Cl 

Cl  T?" 

0?  0 

to 

Cl  0 

d ^ 

to 

ci 

to 

Cl 

10  CO 

Cl  -r 

to 

0 CO 

to 

Cl 

0 

CO 

to 

CO 

•oiqo  ‘ijBaapntf) 

10 

X 

dOD  CO 

OJ  CO  0 

0 s 

to 

0 X 

0 1- 

r-i  0 

i 

to  CO 

0 Cl 

Cl  rH 

CO  X 

to 

0 

CO 

X 

•oiqo  ‘qjnonisiJOti 

to 

to 

CO  05 

X 

t- 

0 rH 

0 X 

to 

to 

0 X 

0 05 

to 

Cl' 

0 

to  CO 

t-‘  CO* 

Cl  rH 

X «> 

to 

to 

CO 

0 

00 

•BA 

•AV  ‘lUBStsaij  jnioj 

to 

to  ^ 

-9*  0 to 

0 CO  i> 

to 

rH  l> 

rH  OJ 

c:  i> 

to 

to 

rH  0 

CO  X 

to 

CO 

0 

to  CO 

t-*  ci 

CO  Cl 

i>  CO 

to 

t--* 

X 

Cl 

•BJ  ‘qgjnqs^jx^ 

to  X to 

rH  cd  X 

CO  S 0 

X to 

Cl  — 

CO  0 

X to 

CO  cd 

d X 

CO  rH 

X 

CO 

CO 

X 

CO  t- 

TT  CO 

Names  of  points. 

0 

1 ! 

& i 

<S  c 

3 Q 

=£  5 

: ' 

i 1 

3 ^ 

? ^ 

' ? 

r * 

1 I 

f > 

! 1 

• fi 

: ts 

1 ^ 

! ^ 1 

1 f i 

? g p 

> 

S' 

rj 

t 

g 

5 

682 


REPORT  OP  THE  CHIEF  OF  ENGINEERS. 


From  this  table  the  following  deductions  are  drawn : If  the  capes  of  Virginia  he  the 
objective  point,  the  shortest  line  for  all  points  west  of  Point  Pleasant  will  be  via  cen- 
tral w^ater-line.  Difference  in  favor  of  central,  160  miles.  Same  if  New  York  be  the 
objective  point.  If  a port  on  tide-water  (Georgetown  for  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  or  Rich- 
mond for  central)  be  the  objective,  108  miles  is  saved  by  the  central  for  all  points  west 
of  Point  Pleasant.  If  Baltimore  be  the  objective,  42  miles  is  saved  to  ail  points  west 
of  Point  Pleasant  by  the  central.  If  a port  on  Hampton  Roads  (say  Newj5ort  News) 
be  the  objective,  the  distance  saved  to  all  points  west  of  Point  Pleasant  by  the  central 
is  190  miles. 

On  the  central  water-line  it  may  be  advisable  to  adopt  one  or  two  double-track 
planes  (or  a hydraulic  lift)  at  the  eastern  approach  to  the  tunnel,  instead  of  the  two 
flights  of  locks.  (Vertical  distance  to  be  overcome,  64  feet.)  According  to  Major  Mer- 
rill’s report,  the  plane  at  Georgetown,  overcoming  a lift  of  36  feet,  will  cost  about 
$100,000.  The  boats  on  the  central  will  be  much  larger  than  those  in  present  use  on 
the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal.  If  we  suppose  two  planes  at  the  eastern  approach  to 
the  summit-tunnel  of  the  central  to  cost  $200,000,  the  saving  in  estimated  cost  would 
be  $126,308.57.  A plane  or  vertical  lift  might  be  used  at  Richmond  instead  of  the  flight 
of  locks. 

On  the  Greenbrier  division  it  might  be  advisable  to  place  one  plane  below  Alderson, 
changing  the  location  as  at  present  made  to  the  following:  Leaving  dam  No.  11  with 
canal-bottom  at  the  elevation  1,602,  as  at  present,  and  keeping  this  elevation  till  the 
head  of  the  flats  opposite  Alderson  is  reached,  and  then  by  a plane  overcome  the  lift 
of  52  feet,  six  locks  would  be  saved.  I presume  the  excavation  would  be  about  the 
same  as  now  estimated  by  including  that  for  the  locks.  The  six  locks,  exclusive  of 
excavation,  would  cost  about  $144,000. 

Colonel  Sedgwick  estimates  the  cost  of  a plane  of  64  feet  lift  at  $43,331.75,  which 
Major  Merrill  doubles,  on  account  of  the  experience  at  Georgetown.  It  maj"  be,  then, 
that  the  plane  of  52  feet  lift  would  cost  one-half  as  much  as  the  locks,  and  a saving  of 
$72,000  would  be  made.  These  locks  are  single,  and  will  have  to  be  doubled,  without 
doubt,  w'hen  the  trade  of  the  line  is  developed. 

It  may  be  that  a jAane  would  be  advisable  in  the  line  round  the  Great  Bend,  but  our 
data  are  not  sufficient  to  permit  a recommendation  to  be  made. 

If  the  higher  summit  (McNeill’s)  should  be  adopted,  it  might  be  that  several  planes 
would  be  advisable  in  overcoming  the  lift  from  the  tunnel  to  the  mouth  of  Fork  Run, 
(about  288  feet.)  I doubt  if  the  use  of  planes  would  be  advisable  between  the  western 
portal  of  this  tunnel  and  the  mouth  of  Howard’s  Creek,  on  account  of  the  quite  gradual 
fall  (compared  with  Fork  Run  Valley)  between  these  points.  The  total  lift  to  the  first 
pool  on  the  Greenbrier  from  McNeill’s  tunnel  is  246  feet.  The  distance  from  the  west- 
ern extremity  of  the  approach  cut  to  the  mouth  of  Howard’s  Creek  is  about  45,000 
feet.  This  would  require  that  the  locks  (of  8 feet  lift)  should  be  at  the  distance  of 
about  1,400  feet  apart,  (average.)  It  might  be  found  difficult  in  the  location  of  planes 
to  keep  the  canal  upon  the  hill-side  to  gain  sufficient  height. 

The  tunnel  here  proposed  by  McNeill  would  be,  according  to  his  report,  13,920  feet 
in  length.  This  is  with  a depth  of  cutting  of  50  feet.  The  jmoposed  tunnel  on  the 
summit-level  of  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal  is  19,800  feet  in  length.  By  a slight 
variation  from  McNeill’s  location,  and  increasing  the  depth  of  approach-cuts  to  80  feet, 
the  length  of  the  tunnel  could  probably  be  reduced  to  12,000  feet  or  less.  While 
referring  to  this  higher  summit,  I would  call  attention  to  the  consideration  that  the 
short  line  might  permit  us  to  excavate  two  parallel  tunnels  at  the  outset.  Then,  as 
the  slowness  of  movement  w'ould  not  interfere  with  the  carrying  capacity  of  the  line, 
the  tunnels  might  each  be  made  of  less  section  than  would  be  permissible  wTth  a sin- 
gle tunnel. 

McNeill’s  summit  on  the  central  water-line  is  1,916  feet  above  tide.  The  proposed 
summit  for  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal  is  1,944  feet  above  tide.  Th^  summit  of 
the  central  w'ater-line  is  about  2°  10'  south  of  that  of  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio. 

The  ijresent  terminus  of  the  James  River  and  Kanawha  Canal  is  812  feet  above  tide. 
That  of  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  is  about  624  feet.  On  the  James  River  and  Kanawha 
Canal,  from  1848  to  1868,  the  number  of  days  in  which  the  canal  was  closed  by  ice 
varied  from  none  to  fifty-six,  and  for  the  twenty  years  the  average  was  15.1  days.  The 
Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal  closes  from  1st  to  15th  of  December ; opens  about  20th 
March. 

On  the  central  water-line,  as  now  estimated  for,  the  canal-trunk  is  at  no  point,  except 
at  aqueducts,  of  less  width  than  56  feet  on  the  bottom.  A portion  of  the  Chesapeake 
and  Ohio  is  but  45  feet. 

The  proposed  canal-locks  on  the  central  water-line  are  24  feet  wide.  Those  for  the 
Chesax>eake  and  Ohio  are  but  20  feet  wide.  This  makes  little  difference  in  the  esti- 
mates for  the  locks,  but  it  makes  considerable  difference  in  the  question  of  water-sup- 
yfly  and  width  of  the  tunnel,  and  some  difference  in  the  cost  of  y^lanes  and  the  machin- 
ery thereof. 


APPENDIX  V. 


fi83 

The  nse  of  steam  on  the  canal  will  decrease  the  detention  at  locks,  and  will  decrease 
the  superiority  of  inclined  planes  and  the  equated  saving  of  distance  due  to  their  use. 
Respectfully  submitted. 

Thomas  Turtle, 
First  Lieut,  of  Engineeis. 

Maj.  William  P.  Ckaighill, 

Corps  of  Engineers,  U.  S.  A. 


LIST  OF  MAPS,  ETC.,  ACCOMPANYING  REPORTS  PERTAINING  TO  THE  SUMMIT  AND  GREEN- 
BRIER DIVISIONS. 

Baltimore,  Md.,  Julg  27,  1876. 

Major  : The  following  is  a list  of  the  maps,  &c.,  pertaining  to  the  summit  and 
Greenbrier  divisions  of  the  central  water-line,  and  accompanying  the  reports  of  the 
survey  of  1874 : 

SUMAIIT  DIVISION. 

1 map  (sheet  No.  1)  of  survey  from  Dunlap’s  Creek  to  the  Greenbrier  division,  scale 

1^'  =1,000'. 

1 map,  (sheet  No.  2,)  scale,  1"  =200',  of  Brush  Creek  Valley. 

1 map,  (sheet  No.  3,)  scale,  1"  = 200',  of  Howard’s  Creek  Valley. 

1 map,  (sheet  No.  4,)  scale,  1"  = 200',  of  feeder-line. 

38  sheets  of  cross-sections  of  Brush  Creek  Valley. 

42  sheets  of  cross-sections  of  Howard’s  Creek  Valley. 

3  sheets  of  cross-sections  on  opposite  hill  from  the  northern  line,  (ravine  on  the 
Greenbrier.; 

23  sheets  of  cross-sections  of  feeder-line. 

1 profile  of  feeder-dam. 

3 transit  note-books. 

7 note-books  of  cross-sections. 

18  level  note-books. 

GREENBRIER  DIVISION. 

3 maps,  scale,  1"  = 200',  of  Greenbrier  Valley,  from  the  feeder-dam  to  New  River. 

1 map,  scale,  1"  = 600',  showing  the  entire  (^reat  Bend. 

4 sheets  of  cross-sections  at  Bacon’s  Falls. 

1 sheet  of  cross-sections  of  bar  at  Alderson. 

37  sheets  of  profiles  of  dams  and  dikes. 

30  sheets  of  cross-sections  of  lock-sites  for  slack-water. 

6 sheets  of  profiles  of  dams  for  canal-lines. 

193  sheets  of  cross-sections  of  main  canal-line. 

1 sheet  of  cross-sections  of  line  on  left  bank  below  Alderson,  (station  215  to  station 
22.5,)  pertaining  to  canal-line,  from  dam  18  to  pool  at  Wolf  Creek. 

37  sheets  of  cross-sections  from  west  iDortal  of  Great  Bend  tunnel,  Chesapeake  and 
Ohio  Railroad,  to  the  mouth  of  the  Greenbrier  River. 

1 sheet  of  cross-sections  of  lines  on  the  right  bank  above  Alderson,  (approach  to 
pool  of  dam  16,)  pertaining  to  canal-line  on  the  left  bank. 

1 sheet  of  cross-sections  above  dam  16  on  left  bank. 

63  sheets.of  cross-sections’of  left  bank  below  Alderson,  (dam  16  to  the  Great  Bend.) 

7 transit  note-books. 

1 note-book  of  soundings. 

1 profile-level  book. 

1 miscellaneous-level  note-book. 

5 level  note-books,  profiles  of  dams  and  cross-sections  of  lock-sites. 

11  note-books,  levels  on  slack-water  and  canal-line  surveys. 

17  level  note-books,  cross-section  of  canal-line. 

Very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 


Maj.  William  P.  Craighill, 

Corps  of  Engineers,  U.  S.  A. 


Thomas  Turtle, 
First  Lieut,  of  Engineers. 


684 


REPORT  OF  THE  CHIEF  OF  ENGINEERS. 


EEPORT  ON  LOCATION  OF  TUNNEL  BY  LIEUTENANT  THOMAS  TUETLE,  COEPS  OF  EN- 

GINEEES. 

Baltimoee,  Md.,  July  5,  1876. 

Majoe  : I have  the  honor  to  submit  the  following  report  of  that  portion  of  the  sur- 
vey for  the  “ central  water-line”  which  was  placed  in  my  charge  by  your  letter  of  July 
9,  1874.  My  instructions,  as  contained  in  this  letter,  were,  in  part,  as  follows: 

You  will  proceed  to  the  neighborhood  of  the  Lorraine  tunnel,  on  the  Allegheny  sum- 
mit of  the  central  water-line,  and  there  undertake  such  further  investigations  and 
surveys  as  may  be  required  to  furnish  the  information  needed,  to  enable  a definite  and 
final  location  to  be  made  of  that  important  feature  of  the  line,  and  to  put  the  work 
promptly  under  contract  should  Congress  provide  the  means.  While  locating  the 
tunnel,  as  a means  of  passing  a great  communication  through  the  mountain,  you  will 
bear  in  mind  also  its  office  as  the  summit-level  of  a canal,  and  consider  carefully  the 
best  means  of  connecting  it  with  the  canal  or  slack-water  at  either  end,  and  of  main- 
taining its  supply  of  water  by  suitable  feeding  arrangements,  assuming  that  supply  to 
be  sufficient.” 

In  accordance  with  these  instructions,  parties  were  formed  about  the  middle  of  July, 
and  work  commenced  on  the  20th  of  that  month.  The  transits  Avere  in  charge  of  Mr. 
R.  H.  Talcott  and  Mr.  S.  F.  Adams,  and  the  levels  were  taken  by  Messrs.  J.  A.  Harris, 
Henry  Fairfax,  Thomas  Bernard,  and  Marsden  S.  Manson.  I take  pleasure  in  acknowl- 
edging the  zeal  shown  by  all  these  gentlemen  throughout  the  survey,  and  their  faith- 
ful performance  of  whatever  duty  was  required  of  them.  It  was  understood  that  the 
primitive  object  of  the  surveys  in  the  vicinity  of  the  summit  was  to  determine  the  ad- 
Ausability  of  adopting  a tunnel-line  from  Brush  Creek  (otherwise  Jerry’s  Run)  to 
Howard’s  Creek,  or  to  the  Greenbrier  River  direct,  as  a substitute  for  the  line  proposed 
by  Mr.  W.  R.  Hutton,  in  his  report  to  you  after  his  survey  in  1870,  printed  in  the  Re- 
l)ort  of  the  Chief  of  Engineers  for  1871. 

This  substitute  was  suggested,  subject  to  the  test  of  actual  survey,  by  Bvt.  Maj. 
Gen.  J.  G.  Barnard,  colonel  Corps  of  Engineers,  to  the  Board  of  Engineers  on  the  James 
River  and  Kanawha  Canal,  convened  by  Special  Orders  No.  17,  War  Department,  Ad- 
jutant-General’s Office,  January  27,  1874.  This  suggestion  was  incorporated  in  the  re- 
l)ort  of  the  board  to  the  Chief  of  Engineers,  dated  March  18,  1874,  in  words  as  follows : 

“It  is  also  suggested  that  the  tunnel  and  canal  construction  may  he  improved  by  a 
radical  change  of  location,  taking  a point  near  the  railroad-crossing  in  the  ravine  of 
Brush  Creek  (or  Jerry’s  Run)  for  the  eastern  terminus,  and  the  same  point  on  Howard’s 
Creek  for  the  western.  By  this  it  is  supposed  that  2 miles  of  canalling  would  be  saved, 
and  the  location  laid  in  a more  open  valley  (Brush  Creek)  than  Fork  Run ; or  finally, 
and  possibly,  by  starting  from  the  last-named  point  and  tunneling  a distance  scarcely 
exceeding  that  originally  designed  by  Mr.  Lorraine,  (9  miles  and  a fraction,)  the  valley 
of  the  Greenbrier  may  be  reached,  by  which  the  expensive  canalling  in  Howard’s 
Creek  and  the  feeder  would  be  wholly  dispensed  with.  The  modifications  of  location 
are  not  mentioned  as  matters  of  x>ositive  recommendation,  but  as  subjects  for  further 
survey,  with  a view  of  having  the  best  possible  location.” 

The  survey  began  at  a point  near  the  junction  of  Brush  and  Dunlap’s  Creeks.  A 
line  was  run  up  Dunlap’s  Creek,  to  connect  with  the  initial  point  and  bench-mark  of 
Mr.  Hutton’s  survey  of  1870.  This  was  necessary,  as  Mr.  Lorraine’s  line  and  benches 
of  1853  had  disappeared.  The  surveys  extended  up  Brush  Creek  to  and  above  the  rail- 
road fill.  Cross-sections  were  taken  of  the  valley,  at  distances  of  100  feet,  and  extended 
on  either  side  as  far  as  was  judged  necessary  to  enable  a canal  location  to  be  made. 
An  offset  was  run  from  station  11  of  the  line  to  Dunlai)’s  Creek,  and  cross-sections  were 
taken  on  the  offset ; which  enables  us  to  make  a connection  with  Lorraine’s  location  in 
the  valley  of  Dunlap’s  Creek  and  in  the  pool  of  dam  No.  8 (station  745)  of  that  loca- 
tion. This  completed  the  examination  for  the  eastern  approach  and  connection. 

Station  120  -j-  15  of  the  Brush  Creek  line  was  taken  as  the  initial  point  for  the  trial 
lines  for  the  tunnel  location.  The  directions  were  obtained  as  nearly  as  possible,  for 
the  objects  in  view,  from  a copy  of  Captain  McNeil’s  map  and  from  a plot  of  the  Ches- 
apeake and  Ohio  Railroad,  kindly  furnished  us  from  the  engineer  office  of  the  company. 

The  line  from  Brush  Creek  to  Howard’s  Creek  is  designated  on  the  map  “ Southern 
line  of  1874,”  and  that  from  Brush  Creek  to  the  Greenbrier  River  as  the  “ Northern  line 
of  1874.”  The  surveys  of,  and  pertaining  to,  the  southern  line  were  made  by  Mr.  Tal- 
cott, and  those  for  the  northern  line  by  Mr.  Adams. 

All  surveyed  lines  were  run  with  transit  instruments.  Those  depressions,  which 
offered  any  chances  for  the  location  of  shafts,  were  surveyed  to  the  right  and  left  of 
the  main  lines,  as  far  as  was  considered  necessary  for  such  locations.  The  lines  of  levels 
were  carried  along  the  main  lines  and  all  surveyed  lines.  The  southern  line  surveys 
were  continued  down  Howard’s  Creek  to  the  Greenbrier  River,  and  cross-sections  were 
taken  in  the  valley  of  the  former  down  to  a point  below  Caldwell  Station  of  the  Ches- 
apeake and  Ohio  Railroad,  (to  station  108  of  the  Howard’s  Creek  line.) 

The  surveys  for  the  northern  line  extended  to  the  Greenbrier  RiA'er  and  up  the  river 
for  7,532  feet.  An  offset  line  was  run  up  the  valley  of  the  middle  fork  of  Howard’s 


APPENDIX  V. 


685 


Creek,  and  another  down  Howard’s  Creek  and  up  a ravine,  beading  toward  the  Green- 
brier. 

The  necessary  surveys  were  also  made  for  feeding  arrangements  from  the  Greenbrier 
River. 

The  information  resulting  from  these  surveys  has  been  compiled,  and  is  shown  in  a 
series  of  four  maps  accompanying  this  report.  Sheet  No.  1,  on  a scale  of  one  inch  to 
one  thousand  feet,  shows  the  entire  ground  surveyed  from  Dunlap’s  Creek  to  Greenbrie 
River.  The  contours  show  the  exact  elevations  where  they  cross  surveyed  lines,  and 
are  but  approximate  of  these  lines,  except  in  Brush  Creek  and  Howard’s  Creek  Valleys 
and  along  the  line  of  the  feeder,  cross-sections  having  been  taken  in  these  localities. 
Upon  this  map  are  also  shown  Hutton’s  line  and  i^roposed  location  of  1870,  and  Mc- 
Neil’s proposed  tunnel  of  1826. 

In  addition  to  the  surveys  mentioned  above,  the  strike  and  dip  of  the  rock  were  noted 
in  many  places  where  it  outcropped  upon  the  lines ; and  an  examination  was  made  by 
Mr.  Talcott  and  Mr.  Manson  of  the  cuttings  and  tunnels  of  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio 
Railroad  from  Brush  Creek  to  Hart’s  Run.  The  strikes  and  dips  of  the  different  strata 
were  noted,  and  specimens  (126  in  number)  of  all  the  different  varieties  of  the  rock  were 
secured. 

The  location  of  the  tunnel-line  for  the  summit-level  is  the  first  matter  to  be  definitely 
fixed,  as  the  connections  at  both  ends  depend  upon  it. 

It  is  assumed  that  the  elevation  of  the  summit  shall  be  somewhat  higher  than  the 
level  of  the  Greenbrier  at  its  western  end  or  approach. 

I find  it  advisable  to  first  consider  the  dimensions  and  form  of  the  cross-section  of 
the  tunnel,  and  that  the  determination  of  this  matter  involves  incidentally  the  discus- 
sion of  all  matters  pertaining  to  the  summit  division.  The  late  Board  of  Engineers 
were  “ unanimously  of  the  opinion  ” (see  report  of  Chief  of  Engineers  1874,  Part  2, 
page  90)  “that  a tunnel  of  the  dimensions  proposed,  (54  feet  broad  by  34  feet  high,) 
i.  e.,  wide  enough  for  passing  everywhere,  should  not  be  attempted,  and,  on  the  sugges- 
tion of  one  of  its  members,”  united  “ on  the  recommendation  of  a single  tunnel  with 
turnouts  of  dimensions  ” to  be  “ fully  set  forth  in  his  individual  report,  with  which 
hereafter,  if  found  necessary^  a second  tunnel  might  be  combined.”  The  tunnel  so  sug- 
gested was  to  have  a water-way  34  feet  wide  and  7 feet  deep,  and  would  have  passing- 
places  140  feet  in  length  at  every  fourth  of  a mile.  These  passing-places  would  divide 
the  tunnel  into  a certain  number  of  compartments,  each  of  which  could  he  occupied  hy  hut 
one  boat  at  a time,  unless  the  length  of  the  passing-places  be  increased  to  permit  more 
than  one  boat  to  enter.  In  such  a tunnel,  the  canal  being  worked  regularly  and  to  its 
full  capacity,  system  would  require  that  the  boats  moving  in  the  same  direction  should 
occupy  alternate  compartments,  the  remaining  compartments  being  occupied  by  boats 
moving  in  the  opposite  direction.  A direct  relation  exists  between  the  speed  of  the 
boats  (taken  in  connection  with  the  distance  between  turnouts)  and  the  number  of 
boats  which  can  pass  out  of  the  tunnel  in  a given  time. 

If  we  suppose 

t = fraction  of  an  hour  lost  at  each  turnout, 
w=rnumber  of  turnouts  per  mile,  and 

refraction  of  an  hour  occupied  in  the  passage  of  1 mile  unobstructed,  then  will 
fraction  of  an  hour  lost  at  turnouts  per  mile,  and 
r-f-wt— fraction  of  an  hour  required  to  move  1 mile,  including  delays  at  turnouts. 

In  the  time  {v-\-nt),  n boats  will  have  emerged  from  the  tunnel.  Representing  by  N 
the  number  of  boats  leaving  per  hour,  we  have  ?i=N  (v-\-nt). 

The  tunnel  will  be  an  enormous  obstacle  in  the  line  of  communication,  unless  it  per- 
mits the  passage  of  boats  as  rapidly  as  they  can  be  passed  through  the  locks.  We  will 
suppose  six  lockages  per  hour  to  be  necessary,  or  N=6,  we  have  n—4  (passing-places 
every  fourth  of  a mile),  t must,  in  advance  of  experience,  be  assumed.  This  time,  t, 
is  made  up  of  the  time  lost  in  slacking  the  speed  of  the  boat,  in  hauling  it  sidewise  into 
the  recess,  in  allowing  the  other  boat  to  pass,  in  hauling  out  of  the  recess,  and  starting 
it  forward  to  attain  its  ordinary  speed,  t can  scarcely  be  assumed  at  less  than  five 
minutes  (tV  hour),  and  may  equal  ^ hour.  We  will  suppose  iV  hour.  Then,  from 
the  formula  (^^  = N (v-j-nt),  we  find  v=l;  that  is,  the  velocity  of  movement  must  he  at  least 
3 miles  per  hour  to  permit  six  lockages  in  this  time. 

If  we  double  the  number  of  passing-places,  we  find  or  the  velocity  of  move- 
ment should  be  H miles  per  hour.  Twelve  turnouts  per  mile  would  require  a rate  of 
motion  of  1 mile  per  hour. 

An  increase  in  the  value  of  t will  necessitate  an  increase  in  velocity.  If  t=l  hour, 
no  possible  velocity  can  enable  6 boats  to  pass  out  per  hour,  let  the  "number  of  turn- 
outs be  w’hat  it  may. 

This  substitution  of  ^ for  t in  the  formula  (N  being  equal  to  6)  will  give  v = 0;  i.  e., 
an  infinite  velocity  will  be  necessary.  This  is  as  it  should  be,  for  the  time  of  passing 
from  one  turnout  to  another,  plus  the  time  lost  at  turnout,  must  not  exceed  the  time 
of  one  lockage.  In  this  connection,  it  will  be  interesting  to  investigate  tbe  probable 
attainable  rate  of  movement  through  a channel-way  of  this  width  and  depth. 


686 


REPORT  OF  TilE  CHIEF  OF  ENGINEERS. 


Some  years  since,  M.  Bazin  made  a series  of  experiments  at  the  Pouilly  tunnel  of 
the  Burgundy  Canal,  in  France,  which  throws  considerable  light  on  this  subject.  This 
tunnel  of  Pouilly  is  10.991  feet  in  length,  with  a water-way  2b..343  feet  in  width  at  the 
water-surface  and  18,6928  feet  at  the  bottom.  The  depth  of  water  varied  during  the 
experiments  from  7..546  to  7.71  feet.  There  was  no  current.  The  boats  were  16.404.5 
feet  in  width.  “A  dynamometer  placed  immediately  behind  the  tow-boat  received  the 
tow-lines  directly,  and  indicated  each  instant  the  force  of  traction.  The  velocity  was 
determined  by  noting  to  seconds  the  time  of  ipassing  bench-marks  placed  at  distances 
of  100  meters. 

The  results  of  these  experiments  presented  numerous  variations  in  their  details, 
since  the  force  of  traction,  more  especially  the  velocity  of  movement,  was  incessantly 
modified  through  the  influence  of  various  causes — such  as  variable  pressureof  the  steam 
in  the  boiler,  the  accidental  movement  of  the  boats  in  tow,  which,  not  always  follow- 
ing the  axis  of  the  tunnel,  moved  obliquely  to  it  and  even  touched  the  sides  ; the  wave 
motion  produced  by  the  convoy,  &c.  “ The  experiments  were  nine  in  number.  The 

boats,  when  arranged  in  tows,  were  lashed  to  each  other  ?«s  closely  as  possible — a j) re- 
caution  usefql  in  diminishing  the  resistance.’’ 

The  composition  of  the  tows  and  the  observation  made  for  velocity,  force  of  traction, 
&c.,  are  given  by  M.  Bazin  in  two  tables,  which  are  here  consolidated  into  one  and 
re-arranged.  The  French  weights  and  measures  are  reduced  to  English  units.  Some 
of  the  items  in  the  original  tables  are  omitted  as  superfluous  for  our  purpose. 

Table  I. 


4^ 

1 

o 

Composition  of  fleets. 

1 

1 

1 

velocity,  in 
per  second. 

k P 
> 

c c 

ii 

is 

11 

111 

4 

h: 

11 

"o 

c 

1 

11 

111 

is-l 

3 

1 

Consists  of  one  boat,  rlraiip'ht  .3'.9 

A. 

2.  365 

2624.  7 

1300.  4 

.3076.  2 

B. 

.3.  681 

1968.  4 

3769.  6 

13875.  9 

C. 

2.  815 

2624.  7 

1807.  5 

5088.  5 

2 

Consists  of  one  beat,  draught  4'. 4 

D. 

2.  139 

2624.  7 

1234.  5 

2640.  6 

E. 

2.  345 

3937.  0 

1300.  4 

3050.  2 

3 

Consisting  of  two  boats,  draught  as  follows : 4'. 2 and  3'. 46. 

r. 

2.  526 

3280.  9 

1675.  4 

4232.  0 

H. 

2.  692 

2624.  7 

2050. 1 

5519.  0 

I. 

2.  638 

2624.  7 

1895.  8 

5001.  2 

4 

Consisting’ of  two  boats,  draught  as  follows:  4'  and  4'. 4, 

K. 

2.  302 

2952.  8 

1873.  8 

4313. 4 

and  one  empty  boat. 

L. 

2.  054 

3280.  9 

1366.7 

2807,  3 

5 

Consisting  of  two  loaded  boats,  draught  as  follows : 4'. 27, 
4'.2 ; one  boat  lightly  loaded,  draught  I'.llS,  and  one 

M. 

2.  221 

1312.  3 

1454.  9 

3231.  4 

N. 

2.319 

1312.  3 

1984.  0 

4600.  9 

empty  boat. 

0. 

2.  920 

4265.  3 

2601.  2 

7595.  6 

6 

Consisting  of  three  rafts,  draught  as  follows : 4'.59,  4'. 757, 
and  4'. 59. 

P. 

2.  516 

3280.  9 

2777.  6 

6988.  5 

B. 

2.  487 

3280.  9 

2909.  8 

7236, 9 

S. 

2.  712 

2624,  7 

3350.  8 

9087.  3 

7 

Consisting  of  three  boats,  draught  as  follows : 4'. 23,  3'. 67, 

T. 

2.  100 

3609.  0 

3483.  0 

9529.  6 

and  4'.29. 

IT. 

2.  099 

2624,  7 

2094.  2 

4397.  9 

8 

Consisting  of  three  boats,  draught  as  follows  : 4'. 49,  4M, 
and  4'.166. 

V. 

2.  040 

3280.  9 

2006.  0 

4091.  3 

W. 

2.  673 

3280.  9 

4078.  2 

111.58.  1 

X. 

2.  349 

3230.  9 

2954.  0 

6939.  9 

9 

Consisting  of  seven  boats,  draught  as  follows  : 4'.!527, 4'.33, 
4'.59,  4'.56,  4',0,  3'.969,  3h018,  and  two  empty  boats. 

Y. 

2.  163 

5905.  6 

4166.  4 

9032.  8 

For  the  present  we  have  to  consider  only  the  case  of  a single  boat;  that  is,  the  first 
and  second  experiments. 

To  facilitate  our  comparisons,  the  following  table  is  compiled  from  the  preceding 
information  : 


APPENDIX  V. 


687 


Table  II. 


f 


bt+i 

ill 


'C 

b/j® 


'S'? 

S 

^ § 

a?- 


.S  S 

(D  P. 
P 


-5+i 

O — 

gi 

p 

o o' 

4)  ot; 


ii 

s ^ 


o_ 
® 
O P 


S . 

II 

c V- 

5 ® 
A 

'p  « 

C b 

o'® 


I 3.9 
!■  4.4 


64.  04 
72. 12 


1,  300.  4 
3,  769.  6 
1,  807.  5 
1,  234.  5 
1,  300.  4 


20.3 
53.8 
28.  25 

17.  1 
18.0 


1.  6125 

2.  5097 
1.9193 
1. 4584 
1.  5988 


147.2 

147.2 


2.  295 
2.  041 


1.  190 
1.  190 


1.  9.35 
1.714 


On  the  central  water-line  the  locks  are  proposed  to  be  24  feet  in  width,  and  the 
boats  will  then  be  about  23  feet  6 inches  wide.  If  we  suppose  a draught  of  6 feet  4 
inches  in  a tunnel  34  feet  in  width,  the  water  must  be  10  feet  deep  to  make  the  water 
section  bear  the  same  ratio  to  the  submerged  section  of  the  boat  as  in  the  first  ex^ieri- 
ment,  and  nearly  9 feet  to  make  this  ratio  the  same  as  in  the  second  experiment.  We 
will  suppose  these  conditions  to  be  the  same,  and  that  for  the  same  velocity  the  neces- 
sary mean  eftbrt  of  traction  per  unit  of  submerged  section  will  be  equal  in  the  two 
cases. 

We  can  now  compile  the  following  table  of  velocities  and  resistances  for  a tunnel  34 
feet  wide,  and  the  boats  being  23  feet  6 inches  in  width,  with  a draught  of  6 feet  4 
inches. 

Table  III. 


Letter  of  reference. 

Velocity,  in  niile.s,  per 
lioiir,  a.s  per  'I'.ahle 
II. 

Necessary  moan  elfort 
of  tractio])  i>er  unit 
of  submorged  .sec- 
tion. 

5 

if 

cc  ^ 
cl 

?! 

•< 

Total  effort  necessary 
to  pi’oduce  given 
velocity,  neglecting 
fractioiis. 

Batio  of  width  of 
Avater-way  to  width 
of  boat. 

Ratio  of  depth  of  water 
to  draught  of  boat. 

Supposed  dei)th  of 
water. 

A 

1. 6125 

Founds. 

20.3 

143.  83 

Founds. 
3.  021 

1.447 

1.  579 

Feet. 

10 

B 

2.  5097 

58.8 

148.  83 

8.  751 

1.  447 

1.579 

10 

C 

1.9193 

23.  25 

148.  83 

4.  204 

1.447 

1.  579 

10 

D 

1.  4.584 

IT.  1 

148.  83 

2.  545 

1.  447 

1.474 

i 9 

E 

1.  5988 

18 

148. 83 

2.  679 

1.447 

1.474 

! ^ 

This  tunnel  is  somewhat  wider  in  proportion  to  the  width  of  the  boats  than  the 
Pouilly  tunnel,  and  of  course  has  less  proportional  depth. 

^ It  will  be  observed  that  the  last  mean  velocity  of  the  second  experiment  (E)  is  but 
little  less  than  the  first  mean  velocity  of  the  first  experiment,  (A.)  and,  though  the  sec- 
ond boat  was  drawing  more  water  than  the  first,  the  mean  effort  per  unit  of  section 
was  considerably  less  than  for  the  first  boat. 

For  some  reason  this  second  boat  moved  more  easily  than  the  first.  We  will  take 
the  second  boat  for  the  standard  of  comparison.  If  we  suppose  the  resistances  to  vary 
as  the  squares  of  the  velocities,  one  mile  perhour  would  require  8.022  pounds  traction  per 
unit  of  section  according  to  D,  and  7.03  pounds  according  to  E.  Seven  pounds  per 
square  foot  will  be  a total  of  1,041.8  pounds  force  of  traction,  the  necessary  amount  to 
move  a boat  1 mile  per  hour.  ' 

It  was  proposed  in  this  single  tunnel,  with  passing-places,  to  have  a timber  tow- 
path  5 feet  9 inches  wide,  in  case  horse-power  were  used  on  the  canal ; this  tow-path 
to  be  omitted  if  steam-power  were  adopted  on  the  canal  instead  of  animal-power. 

The  Ordnance  Manual  (page  472)  gives  120  pounds  as  the  mean  effort  exerted  by  a 
horse  drawing  a cart  or  boat  walking,  and  working  8 hours  per  day.  McAlpiue  men- 
tions that,  according  to  experiments  made  in  France,  a horse  can  exert  143^  pounds  for 
6 days.  These  figures  refer  to  a more  rapid  motion  than  1 mile  per  hour.  Trautwine 


688 


REPORT  OF  THE  CHIEF  OF  ENGINEERS. 


gives  250  pouucls  as  the  power  of  traction  which  a horse  can  e±ert  traveling  1 mile  per 
hour. 

But  we  have  here  a timber  tow-path.  The  footing  cannot  be  as  good  as  upon  earth, 
even  by  placing  some  of  this  material  on  the  path,  (which  would  cause  it  to  rot  out 
quickly,)  and  several  horses  would  be  necessary,  arranged  in  single  file.  These  disad- 
vantages would  seriously  decrease  the  effective  power  of  the  horses. 

Our  boats  have  148.83  square  feet  of  su])merged  section,  loaded  to  6 feet  4 inches. 
One  pound  per  square  foot  seems  to  me  to  be  all  the  effective  force  we  could  expect 
under  the  circumstances  from  each  horse.  Assuming  this  to  be  so,  at  least  7 horses 
would  be  required  for  each  boat  to  move  1 mile  per  hour.  At  the  turn-outs  these  7 
liorses,  with  drivers  mounted,  would  have  to  pass  the  horses  of  the  boat  in  the  turn- 
out. This  manoeuver  on  a narrow  tow-path  must  be  tedious  and  difficult.  The  time 
allowed  at  turn-outs  (fg  hour)  is  surely  as  short  as  with  safety  can  be  assumed. 

One  mile  per  hour,  we  have  seen,  will  render  12  turn-outs  per  mile  necessary.  Each 
being  140  feet  long,  their  aggregate  length  per  mile  would  be  1,680  feet.  Thus  nearly 
one-third  the  entire  length  of  the  tunnel  would  be  excavated  to  a width  sufficient  for 
passing  boats  everywhere,  which,  with  the  expense  of  finishing  off  the  ends  of  the 
recesses  and  the  expense  contingent  on  changing  from  one  section  to  another  in  the 
excavation,  would  probably  make  fully  one-third  the  difference  of  cost  between  a sin- 
gle tunnel  34  feet  wide  and  the  tunnel  of  52  feet  width,  as  originally  proposed.  The 
uncertainty  of  action  of  the  34-foot  tunnel  would  still  remain  to  be  considered,  together 
with  its  disadvantage  of  not  admitting  an  increase  in  the  trade  of  the  line  in  excess  of 
6 boats  per  hour,  (i.  e.,  3 each  way,) 

A current  through  the  tunnel  from  west  to  east  would  somewhat  change  the  condi- 
tions. The  eastward  boat  would  have  the  benefit  of  this  current,  and  would  reach 
the  turn-outs  in  time  probably  to  pass  into  the  recess  before  the  arrival  of  the  west- 
ward boats.  The  westward  boats  would  have  no  delay  at  turn-outs  except  in  the  diffi- 
culty of  passing  horses.  Supposing  no  delay,  (as  might  be  the  case  if  a recess  were 
provided  for  horses  beyond  the  recess  for  the  boat.)  the  formula  wmuld  reduce  to 

= N r,  and  with  a rate  of  movement  of  1 mile  per  hour,  only  six  turn-outs  would  be 
necessary  per  mile  to  provide  for  six  lockages  per  hour.  I estimate  that  a velocity  of 
more  than  one-half  mile  per  hour  will  be  necessary  through  a channel  34  by  9 to  supply 
water  for  the  canal  eastward  to  Covington.  The  westward  boats  must  stem  this  cur- 
rent, and  to  make  1 mile  actual  progress  would  require  about  the  effort  of  traction 
corresponding  to  the  second  part  of  the  second  experiment.  Assuming  148.83  pounds 
to  be  the  effective  effort  of  each  horse,  18  horses  would  be  necessary  ; an  unmanage- 
able number  in  such  circumstances.  Fewer  horses  will  give  less  sj)eed  and  render 
more  turn-outs  necessary. 

It  may  be  said  that  the  westward  boats  will  be  more  lightly  loaded  than  the  east- 
ward ones,  (i.  e.,  to  less  than  6 feet  4 inches,)  and  therefore  will  offer  less  resistance 
than  that  above  mentioned.  Generally  this  will  be  so.  But  a large  transfer  of  iron- 
ores  from  east  of  the  Alleghanies  to  the  west  is  to  be  expected.  A single  heavily- 
loaded  or  slowly-moving  westward  boat  will  modify  the  time  of  passage  of  every 
eastward  boat  which  it  meets  while  in  the  tunnel,  being  one  for  each  turn-out.  If  we 
suppose  but  four  turn-outs  to  the  mile,  and  that  heavily-loaded  boats  shall  succeed 
each  other  at  intervals  not  greater  than  ten  hours,  the  whole  traffic  in  the  tunnel  must 
conform  in  time  of  passage  to  these  heavily-loaded  boats.  A current  of  one- half  mile 
per  hour  must  render  the  checking  of  the  speed  of  the  eastward  boat  and  the  hauling 
of  it  into  the  recess  a difficult  manoeuver  in  a contracted  space  such  as  this  34-foot 
tunnel.  It  cannot  be  done  quickly.  About  300  pounds  traction  would  be  necessary  to 
hold  the  boat  in  this  channel-way  against  a current  of  this  velocity ; more  than  the 
effort  which  two  horses  put  forth  in  towing  at  a walk.  Without  expanding  the  sub- 
j ect  further — already  perhaps  too  long  drawn  out — I would  state  my  opinion  as  decid- 
edly opposed  to  the  tunnel  with  passing-places  for  single  boats,  the  boats  being  moved 
by  animal-power.  It  should  be  remarked,  however,  the  original  proposition  contem- 
plated the  use  of  boats  which  would  offer  less  resistances  to  movement,  as  the  locks 
were  assumed  but  20  feet  in  width. 

If  steam-power  be  used  on  the  canal,  the  tow-path  is  dispensed  with,  and  circum- 
stances change.  The  eastward  current  will  aid  the  eastward  boats,  and  they  should, 
without  doubt,  enter  the  turn-outs,  and  probably  would  be  able  to  complete  this  ma- 
noeuver at  least  in  time  to  enable  the  westward  boat  to  proceed  without  delay.  The 
formula  = N v will  express  the  relation  existing  between  the  velocity  of  the  west- 
ward boats,  the  number  of  turn-outs  per  mile,  and  the  number  of  boats  which  can  pass 
out  of  the  tunnel  per  hour.  With  4 turn-outs  per  mile,  the  net  velocity  of  the  west- 
ward boat  must  be  1^  miles  per  hour  to  provide  for  6 lockages  in  that  time.  The  ac- 
tual velocity  against  the  half-mile  current  must  be  2 miles  per  hour.  With  this  ve- 
locity, the  resistance  per  square  foot  of  submerged  section  would  be  28.1  pounds, 
according  to  the  first  part  of  the  second  experiment,  (D,)  and  26.7  pounds,  according 
to  the  second  part  (E)  of  the  same  experiment.  The  first  experiment  gives  28J  pounds 
for  a velocity  of  1.92  miles  per  hour,  water-way  being  10  feet  deep.  We  will  suppose 


APPENDIX  V. 


689 


28  pouuds  to  be  correct.  The  total  resistance  for  a boat  clrawinj:^  6 feet  4 inches  will 
then  be  4,167.24  pounds.  Two  miles  |)er  hour  is  176  feet  per  minute.  The  work  of 
moving  the  boat  at  this  rate  will  be  734,434  foot-pounds  per  minute,  or  22^  horse-power 
(effective  force)  must  be  employed. 

Lagrene  says  that  the  co-efficient  of  the  useful  effect  of  the  screw  varies  between 
0.42  and  0.64,  taking  tlie  work  of  the  pistons  of  the  engines  as  unity. — (Experiences 
Dynamometriques,  par  M.  Taurines,  1859.)  This  is  for  marine-engines.  Labrousse 
states  (Traits  de  Touage  sur  Chaiue  noyee)  “that  in  our  canal,  (France,)  where  the 
dimensions  of  the  lock-chambers  compel  the  use  of  boats  with  certain  particular  con- 
ditions of  form,  any  system  of  ^ * screws  * * * -will  not  realize  more  than 

25  per  cent,  of  the  motive  force.” 

The  loss  in  this  tunnel  must  be  still  greater.  It  is  therefore  more  than  probable  that 
the  velocity  necessary,  with  four  turn-outs  per  mile,  cannot  be  obtained  with  engines 
at  all  economical  for  the  navigation  of  the  open  canal. 

It  may  be,  though  exceedingly  doubtful,  that  the  power  used  on  the  canal  could  gen- 
erate a lower  velocity,  which,  with  a permissible  number  of  turn-outs,  would  provide 
for  six  lockages  per  hour.  A number  of  turn-outs  permissible  in  view  of  expense  is 
here  meant.  Without  discussing  the  question,  I would  state  an  objection  to  any  sys- 
tem of  tJirn-outs,  which  becomes  more  grave  as  their  number  is  increased.  If  the  tun- 
nel were  worked  systematically  and  to  its  full  capacity,  each  compartment,  as  noticed 
above,  would  contain  a boat,  adjacent  compartments  being  occupied  by  boats  moving 
in  opposite  directions.  Each  boat,  when  arrived  at  a vacant  turn-out,  should  with- 
draw into  it  and  remain  till  passed  by  a boat  moving  the  other  way.  It  could  then 
proceed.  This  alternation  is  positively  necessary,  and,  as  long  as  the  working  be.  full 
and  regular,  would  operate  very  well,  but  if  there  be  a failure  in  either  of  these  condi- 
tions, confusion  must  necessarily  ensue.  The  tunnel  proposed  would  have  thirty  or 
more  turn-outs,  supposing  four  per  mile.  Each  of  the  numerous  delays  incident  to 
any  traffic  will  have  its  effect  in  increasing  the  confusion  within  the  tunnel.  One  boat 
moving  irregularly  will  communicate  this  irregularity,  in  a greater  or  less  degree,  to 
sixty  boats.  In  a time  of  shck  trade  boats  would  not  present  themselves  at  proper 
intervals  at  the  portals.  Some  compartments  would  then  be  unoccupied  by  boats, 
unless  indeed  all  the  boats  withjn  the  tunnel  be  compelled  to  await  the  arrival  of  those 
behind  them.  Ourside  certain  limits  this  could  not  be  thought  of.  The  captain  of 
each  bo  it,  when  arri  vmd  at  a turn-out,  must  know  whether  to  withdraw  into  the  recess 
or  to  pr  »ceed.  A mistake  would  be  very  difficult  of  correction.  We  cannot  hope  that 
thirty  turn-outs  will  answer  our  purpose,  and  a greater  number  will  increase  tlie  diffi- 
culties. This  objection  should  of  itself  prevent  the  adoption  of  passing-places  for 
single  boats  in  a tunnel  of  considerable  extent. 

A single  tunnel  wide  enough  for  passing  everywhere,  or  two  tunnels  of  single  width, 
would  remove  this  objection.  Though  the  movement  would  be  more  slow  than  on  the 
open  canal,  the  boats  could  pass  out  one  end  as  rapidly  as  they  could  possibly  enter  at 
the  other.  The  importance  of  decreasing  the  first  cost  impels  us  to  provide  for  an  or- 
dinary trade  at  least,  without  the  construction  of  the  second  tunnel,  or  a large  tunnel, 
if  it  can  be  avoided.  The  movement  of  boats  in  fleets  seems  to  offer  the  only  chance 
for  a solution  of  the  problem. 

In  the  formula  a = N (v  + ni),  we  can  suppose  N to  be  a number  of  such  fleets,  and  t, 
instead  of  the  time  lost  by  a single  boat  at  each  turn-out,  will  be  the  time  lost  by  the 
entire  fleet,  and,  if  the  eastward  current  be  sufficiently  rapid  to  enable  an  eastward 
fleet  to  arrive  at  and  withdraw  into  a turn-out  before  the  arrival  of  the  westward- 
bound  boats, i becomes  zero,  and  the  formula  reduces  to  w = Nr  for  the  westward  fleets. 

Preparatory  to  the  solution  of  the  problem,  the  experiences  at  the  tunnels  of  the  St. 
Quentin  Canal,  in  Belgium,  and  at  the  Pouilly  tunnel,  in  France,  are  of  great  value. 
M.  Lemoyer  contributed  a memoir  to  the  Auuales  des  Pouts  et  Chaussdes.  1863,  on  the 
towage  of  boats  in  the  tunnels  of  the  St.  Quentin  Canal,  containing  much  valuable  infor- 
mation. It  is  here  condensed,  those  portions  being  omitted  whicn  do  not  immediately 
concern  us  in  our  investigations. 

“ There  are  two  tuimels  (Riqueval  and  Tronquoy)  on  this  canal,  separated  by  a short 
distance.  The  Riqueval  tunnel  is  18,603  feet  in  length,  and  the  other  is  3,606  feet. 
The  water-way  was  at  first  17.06  feet  in  width,  and  7.546  feet  in  deqith,  with  a solid 
banquette  on  each  side  4.6  feet  wide,  and  raised  about  2ifeBt  above  the  ordinary  water- 
level.  From  the  opening  of  this  line,  in  1810,  to  1857,  boats  were  towed  through  these 
tunnels  by  men  and  women,  eight  or  ten  being  assigned  to  each  boat.  The  boats  for- 
merly drew  nearly  5 feet  of  water,  and  thoiigh  all  the  locks  bad  a miiiimutti  width  of 
17.06  feet,  the  greater  part  of  the  Flemish  boats  had  but  a width  of  14.44  feet.  The 
privilege  of  the  tunnel  was  free  to  all.  The  slowness  of  movement  was  such  that  the 
boats  generally  required  twenty  hours  to  traverse  the  Riqueval  tunnel  from  portal  to 
portal.  Transit  in  the  same  direction  could  occur  only  on  each  second  day. 

“ The  increase  of  commerce  necessitated  the  adoption  of  some  method  of  traction 
which  would  reduce  the  delay  incident  to  hauling;  and  January  20,  1840,  ten  men 
were  employed  for  each  twenty  tons,  in  order  to  increase  the  rate  of  movement  and  to 

44  E 


690 


REPORT  OF  THE  CHIEF  OF  ENGINEERS. 


double  tlie  utility^  of  the  canal  permitting:  transit  each  way  each  day.  Competition 
with  railroads  made  the  enlargement  of  the  Flemish  locks  necessary  to  admit  the  wider 
boats,  and  the  draught  of  the  boats  was  increased  to  5.91  feet,  and  the  depth  of  the 
water  throughout  the  line  to  6.56  feet.  With  this  increase  in  the  draught  of  the  boats, 
the  difficulties  of  traction  became  so  great  that  hauling  by  men  was  practically  impos- 
sible. The  time  of  transit,  which  before  this  modification  of  the  boats  was  seven  or 
eight  hours,  soon  incroased  to  sixteen  and  eighteen  hours.  By  degrees  the  men,  from 
exhaustive  labor,  refused  to  continue  work,  and  an  increase  of  wages  could  not  prevail 
on  them  to  remain  in  a service  which  was  beyond  their  strength.  Foreseeing  an 
immediate  abandonment  of  this  means  of  traction,  the  management  tried  various 
means  to  assure  the  towing  of  boats.  A trial  of  steam-towing  had  demonstrated  that 
its  employment  was  here  inapplicable,  with  the  defective  smoke-consumers  then  in 
use,  on  account  of  the  inconveniences  arising  from  the  gases  generated  by  combustion 
and  because  of  the  ill-effects  of  frost  within  the  tunnel,  which  is  excavated  through 
chalk,  and  is  but  partially  lined  with  masonry.* 

“ When  the  boats  were  towed  by  hand,  doors  were  used  at  the  ends  of  the  tunnel  to 
diminish  the  action  of  the  frost,  and  the  shafts  had  been  hermetically  closed.  Deprived 
of  this  mode  of  traction,  the  management  had  recourse  to  horse-power.  The  banquettes 
were  not  provided  with  guard-rails,  and  the  use  of  animals  on  such  a narrow  tow- 
path  was  not  thought  of  without  providing  by  some  means  to  prevent  accidents.  Mov- 
able guard-rails  were  then  adopted,  which  removed  all  danger.  Two  large  transverse 
bars  were  securely  lashed  with  ropes  near  the  bow,  by  means  of  which  the  guard-rails 
were  attached  to  the  boat,  and  moved  with  it.  A horse  on  each  banquette  was  tied  to 
the  fore  part  of  the  guard-rail  and  the  tow-line  was  attached  to  the  boat. 

“A  fleet  of  fifteen  boats  was  first  tried,  towed  by  30  horses.  The  time  of  transit  ex- 
ceeded 14  hours.  Two  other  trials  not  more  successful. 

‘‘  Finally,  fearing  that  this  low  rate  of  speed  was  due  to  the  fact  that  the  horses  were 
unaccustomed  to  this  kind  of  labor,  twenty  teams  perfectly  broken  by  daily  use  in  the 
approach  cuts  were  used,  and  placed  in  charge  of  the  best  drivers. 

“ The  number  of  superintendents  was  doubled,  yet,  notwithstanding  all  precautions 
taken,  the  experiment  failed  completeljq  as  the  convoy  required  13  hours  to  traverse 
the  tunnel. 

“It  was  found  that  the  low  rate  of  speed,  by  compelling  the  horses  to  take  short 
steps,  neutralized  most  of  their  power,  and  the  result  produced  was  altogether  out  of 
proportion  to  the  fatigue  endured.  More  powerful  means  were  necessary. 

“ Out  of  a number  of  methods  proposed,  but  one  appeared  worthy  of  trial.  It  con- 
sisted simply  of  a boat  fitted  with  a platform,  raised  to  clear  the  banquette,  on  which 
horses  traveled  to  turn  a capstan.  A rope  or  cable  attached  to  some  point  ahead,  and 
making  two  turns  round  the  shaft  of  the  capstan,  provided  the  means  of  forward  move- 
ment when  the  capstan  was  turned.  This  device  was  of  great  value,  as  the  increase 
of  power  permitted  the  formation  of  tows  of  30  to  40  boats.  The  time  of  transit  was 
even  now  from  10  to  12  hours. 

“ Improvement  in  the  details  produced  no  acceleration  of  movement,  since  the  resist- 
ance due  to  the  contracted  width  of  the  tunnel  could  not  be  diminished,  and  it  in- 
creased in  great  proportion  to  the  increase  of  speed. 

“The  water-way  was  next  enlarged  by  the  removal  of  one  of  the  banquettes,  giving 
an  increase  of  4.6  feet  in  width.  As  a further  improvement  the  ropes  w^ere  dispensed 
with,  and  a submerged  chain  was  put  in  use  instead.  Eight  horses  were  used  to  tow 
large  fleets,  but  this  number  might  be  diminished  according  to  circumstances.  The 
chain  after  three  years’  use  has  suffered  no  deterioration,  and  none  of  its  links  have 
been  broken.  The  arrangement  enables  each  horse  to  tow  about  one  thousand  gross 
tons,  moving  regularly  with  a velocity  of  about  f of  a mile  per  hour.  This  mode  of 
traction  has  reduced  the  cost  so  materially  that  ithe  toll  is  less  per  ton  per  mile  than 
on  any  other  portion  of  the  canal,  or  even  on  the  river  navigation  connected  there- 
with. The  time  of  transit  was  reduced  to  about  seven  hours  for  ascending  fleets,  and 
to  little  more  than  five  hours  for  those  descending.” 

In  1868 1 steam-towage  with  submerged  chain,  theretofore  considered  impossible,  was 
inaugurated. 

M.  Bazin  has  given  in  a note  (Annales  des  Fonts  et  Chauss^es,  1868)  very  interest- 
ing details  on  the  use  of  steam-towage  established  at  the  Pouilly  tunnel  of  the  Bur- 
gundy Canal,  in  which  note  were  published  the  experiments  mentioned  in  a previous 
part  of  this  report.  From  this  note  the  following  information  is  extracted  : 

“ The  tunnel  of  the  Burgundy  Canal,  in  which  a system  of  steam-towage  has  just 
been  established,  has  not  the  exceptional  length  of  that  of  the  St.  Quentin  Canal.  The 
trade  of  this  line,  paralyzed  even  to  the  present  time  by  the  condition  of  the  river 

* Steam-towing  has  since  been  successfully  inaugurated. — T.  'f. 

t Letter  to  Prof.  G.  L.  Andrews,  U.  S.  M.  A.,  from  Mr.  E.  Malezieux,  Chief  Engineer  of 
the  Corps  des  Fonts  et  Chauss^es,  transmitted  to  General  J.  G.  Barnard,  Corps  of  Engi- 
neers, U.  S.  A. 


APPENDIX  V. 


691 


Yoiine,  the  improvement  of  which  is  not  yet  completed,  is  still  less  active;  and  the 
tunnel  is  on  the  least  frequented  portion,  where  the  annual  carrying  trade  is  only  about 
120,000  tons.  Navigation  on  this  account  was  none  the  less  subject  to  serious  embar- 
rassments which  a more  active  trade  would  immediately  aggravate.  The  tunnel  is 
10,991  feet  in  length,  with  an  approach  cut  2,953  feet  long  at  each  end.  The  approach 
cuts,  like  the  tunnel,  are  but  wide  enough  for  one  boat,  being  21.98  feet  at  the  water- 
surface,  and  20.38  feet  at  the  bottom. 

“The  water-way  of  the  tunnel  is  20.38  feet  wide  at  the  water-level,  and  18.7  feet  at 
the  bottom. 

“The  water  in  the  summit-level  is  constantly  7.2  feet  to  7.87  feet  in  depth.  The 
length  of  the  portion  with  single  widths,  comprising  the  tunnel  and  approach  cuts,  is 
3.2  miles. 

“The  rule  in  operation  before  the  establishment  of  a system  of  towage  allowed  the 
boats  6 hours  to  pass  over  this  distance ; the  convoys  approaching  from  the  side  of  the 
Yonne  entered  at  noon  and  midnight,  and  those  coming  from  the  water-shed  of  the 
Sa6ne,  at  6 o’clock,  morning  and  evening.  The  motive  power  was  furnished  by  men 
to  the  number  of  4 to  6 to  each  boat.  The  tunnel  having  no  tow-path,  these  men 
hauled  on  a chain  attached  along  one  of  the  sides. 

“The  establishment  of  a more  powerful  mode  of  traction  became  urgeut,  especially 
in  view  of  the  probable  increase  of  traffic  when  the  canalization  of  the  Yonne  should 
be  completed.  A decree  of  April  28,  1866,  authorized  the  creation,  at  the  expense  of 
the  state,  of  a system  of  steam-towage,  which  was  placed  in  operation  on  February  5^ 
1867. 

“The  tow-boat  employed  at  the  Pouilly  tunnel  was  constructed  according  to  the  sys- 
tem of  M.  Bouqui4.  This  system,  of  which  the  small  one  in  use  at  Paris,  in  the  last 
level  of  the  St.  Martin  Canal,  is  a specimen,  is  distinguished  from  other  methods  in 
this,  that  the  chain,  instead  of  passing  over  the  middle  of  the  boat,  rests  simply  on  a 
pulley  at  the  side,  passing  over  only  a portion  of  its  circumference.  The  groove  of  this 
pulley  is  provided  with  recesses  in  which  the  links  of  the  chain  are  engaged,  which  re- 
quires that  the  links  should  be  of  a uniform  size.  The  lateral  position  of  the  pulley  has^ 
for  very  narrow  tow-boats,  as  those  operating  in  a tunnel  of  single  width  should  be, 
the  advantage  of  clearing  the  deck,  which  the  passage  of  the  chain  over  the  middle  of 
the  boat  would  incumber  to  an  extent  frequently  dangerous  and  embarrassing  while 
maneuvering.* 

“The  engine  is  high-pressure  and  condensing,!  of  fifteen  horse-power.  Motion  is 
transmitted  to  the  shaft  of  the  pulley  by  means  of  a belt  and  gearing  under  the  deck, 
which  thus  remains  perfectly  free.  The  gearing  permits  twm  different  velocities  of  the 
pulley,  according  as  the  boats  in  tow  be  heavily  or  lightly  loaded.  These  velocities 
are  as  3 to  5.  The  total  length  of  the  boat  is  72.2  feet,  and  its  width  10  feet  8 inches. 
It  cost  $8,074.50. 

“The  steam  tow-boat  at  the  Pouilly  tunnel  is  probably  the  first  employed  for  this 
purpose  in  France,  and  the  experience  here  obtained  furnishes  useful  data  on  the  special 
difficulties  of  its  use  in  like  cases.  The  resistance  to  traction,  on  which  a connected 
series  of  experiments  has  not  been  made,  is  very  great,  and  the  movement  of  convoys 
creates  very  complicated  undulatory  motions  throughout  the  whole  extent  of  the  level. 
This  great  resistance  requires  that  a large  margin  should  be  allowed  for  the  estimated 
powder  to  be  given  to  the  tow-boat. 

The  w^ater  displaced  by  the  progress  of  the  boat  not  having,  as  in  a w^ater-way  of 
great  width,  room  to  flow  off  freely  at  the  sides,  is  obliged  to  escape  with  great  velocity 
through  the  narrow  space  between  the  boat  and  the  sides  and  bottom  of  the  cut,  thus 
causing  a permanent  difference  of  level  from  stem  to  stern  of  the  boat,  which  differ- 
ence of  level  is  greater  as  the  dimensions  of  the  boat  approach  those  of  the  canal.  In 
experiments  made  by  us  this  difference  at  times  was  nearly  8 inches. 

“ The  progress  of  a convoy  of  boats  in  a tunnel  of  great  length  causes  movements  in 
the  entire  mass  of  the  level.  As  soon  as  the  convoy  enters  the  tunnel,  it  presses  the 
■water  before  it,  which  pressure  is  transmitted  forward  in  the  form  of  a wave,  which 
traverses  the  length  of  the  level  to  its  extreme  end,  from  which  it  is  reflected,  and  re- 
turns toward  the  convoy,  reaching  which,  it  passes  on  to  the  other  extremity  of  the 
level,  from  which  it  is  again  reflected,  and  so  on  with  gradually-diminished  height.  It 
is  besides  clear  that  any  variation  in  the  velocity  will  create  secondary  waves  similar 
to  this.  An  increase  of  the  velocity  will  increase  the  difference  of  level,  producing  a 
new  wave,  the  motion  of  which  will  be  in  the  same  direction  as  that  of  the  convoy. 

“ On  the  contrary,  a slowing-up  of  the  boats  will  allow  the  water  to  flow  backward  to 
attain  its  equilibrium  by  passing  under  the  boat,  causing  a new  wave,  which  will  be 

*'  This  method  permits  the  chain  to  be  readily  taken  up  or  thrown  off',  which  cannot 
be  done  if  the  chain  passes  over  the  middle  of  the  boat. — T.  T. 

tThe  condenser  is  absolutely  necessary  in  a tunnel,  as,  because  of  the  slowness  of 
movement,  the  escape  of  the  steam  immediately  produces  complete  darkness.— M. 
Bazin. 


€92 


REPORT  OF  UHE  CHIEF  OF  ENGINEERS. 


propagateil  in  a direction  opposite  to  the  motion  of  the  convoy.  Variations  in  the  sec- 
tion of  the  canal  will  also  produce  effects  of  the  same  kind.  These  causes  collectively 
give  rise  to  very  complicated  phenomena.  We  had  no  very  certain  data  to  determine 
the  power  necessary  for  a tow-boat.  Some  trials  made  in  hauling  one,  two,  and  three 
boats  by  men  in  the  tunnel  and  horses  in  the  approach-cuts  would  seem  to  give  for  the 
value  of  the  effort  IF)  of  traction,  necessary  to  produce  a velocity  (r)  with  (w)  loaded 
boats  drawing  4'. 6 feet. 


F = 159  n 


which,  expressed  in  horse-power,  is 


P = .2890  n v^*. 


According  to  this  formula,  a power  of  fifteen  horses  should  suffice  to  tow  a convoy  of 
seven  boars  with  a velocity  of  nearly  2 feet  per  second.  It  was  even  very  probable 
that  this  result  would  be  exceeded  in  practice,  since  it  could  be  affirmed  a jmori  that 
the  force  of  t action  should  increase  in  a loss  ratio  than  the  number  of  boats  in  tow.’’ 

These  estimates  liav'-e  been  confirmed  by  careful  experiments,  the  results  of  which 
have  been  giv'en  in  Table  1. 

M.  Bazin,  in  discussing  the  results  of  these  experiments  “ without  an  absolute  rule, 
which  tile  nature  of  things  does  not  admit  of,”  groups  the  results  into  a very  sim- 


l)le,  approximate  formula,  by  remarking  that  the  “co-efficient  of  traction  [ — ; ) of  the 


first  boat  is  about  double  that  of  each  succeeding  one  in  the  same  fleet.”  This  formula 
<jhanged  to  English  weights  and  measures  is 


P = .2486  (a+  1) 


in  which  P represer  ts  the  necessary  horse-power  ; n the  number  of  loaded  boats  in  tow, 
and  V the  velocity  in  feet  per  second. 

The  force  of  fifteen  horse-power  will  then  suffice  to  move  eight  boats  with  a velocity 
of  nearly  2 feet  per  second. 

^ “This  formula  is  evidently  but  a mnemonic  rule  applicable  to  this  particular  case, 
since  it  omits  various  elements  of  the  question,  and  notably  the  most  important  of 
all,  the  relation  between  the  submerged  section  of  the  boat  and  the  section  of  the 
water-way.”  [If  we  suppose  the  water-way  of  the  Alleghany  tunnel  to  be  31  feet  6 
inches  at  the  surface  and  30  feet  wide  at  the  bottom,  with  a depth  of  11  feet,  the  con- 
ditions will  be  neaily  the  same  as  in  these  experiments,  supposing  our  boats  to  be  23 
feet  6 inches  in  wfiilth,  and  to  have  a draught  of  6 feet  6 inches.  In  fact  the  section 
of  this  tunnel  is  somewhat  greater  in  proportion  to  the  section  of  the  boat  than  was 
the  case  at  the  Pouilly  tunnel,  these  ratios  being  to  each  other  as  357  to  309.  Omit- 
ting this  difference,  which  will  be  to  the  advantage  of  our  calculations,  Ave  may  apply 
the  data  furnished  by  the  Pouilly  experiments  in  the  discussions  of  the  Alleghany 
tunnel.] 

M.  Bazin,  in  the  memoir  referred  to,  speaks  thus  of  the  difficnlty  of  ventilation  at 
tiff  Pouilly  tunnel  ; “All  precautions  possible  had  been  taken  to  avoid  the  produc- 
tion of  smoke  ; the  tubular  boiler  was  heated  with  coke,  and  a small  jet  of  steam  pro- 
jected nnder  the  grate  permits  an  energetic  draught  to  be  obtained  at  will.  There 
exist  besides,  at  Pouilly,  nineteen  shafts,  of  little  depth  it  is  true,  since  this  depth 
does  not  exceed  13 1-^  feet. 

“ However,  there  were  all  grounds  for  hope  that  the  ventilation  w^as  sufficiently  as- 
sured. All  wmnt  well  during  the  first  month,  but  shortly  after  the  crews  of  the  boats 
were  several  times  seriously  inconvenienced.  The  danger  of  asphyxia  was  even  sufli- 
ciently  serious  to  create  fears  for  the  possibility  of  continuing  the  service.  The  vol- 
ume of  gas  arising  from  the  combustion  of  coke  was  in  too  small  ratio  to  the  volume  of 
air  in  the  tunnel  to  afford  an  explanation  of  these  troubles,  and  the  inference  w^as  un- 
avoidable that  the  gas  could  in  certain  special  conditions  accumulate  on  the  tow^-boat, 
and  in  fact  an  attentive  study  of  the  circumstances  very  soon  showed  that  such  should 
be  the  case. 

“ The  air  wdthin  the  tunnel  is  never  in  repose.  The  direction  of  the  wfind  on  the 
exterior ; the  difference  of  temperature  of  the  two  long  approach-cuts,  one  of  wfliich 
opens  to  the  south,  the  other  to  the  north  ; finally,  the  influence  of  nineteen  shafts, 
give  rise  to  currents  the  direction  and  intensity  of  w^hich  are  continually  varying. 
Frequently  several  changes  in  the  direction  of  the  currents  may  be  observed  in  passing 
through  the  tunnel,  the  air  ascending  at  some  of  the  shafts,  wkile  at  others  the  air  has 
a downward  direction.  When  the  current  of  air  is  in  an  opposite  direction  to  the  mo- 
tion of  the  tow-boat,  the  gas  issuing  from  the  smoke-stack  passes  to  the  rear  and  dis- 
perses ; but,  on  the  contrary,  when  the  current  has  the  same  direction  of  motion  as  the 

* These  formulm  have  been  changed  to  suit  English  weights  and  measures;  v repre- 
sents feet  per  second. — T.  T. 


APPENDIX  V. 


693 


boat,  it  may  happen  that  their  velocities  may  be  about  the  same,  in  which  case  the  air 
■which  envelops  the  boat  follows  along  with  it. 

“ The  gases  can  then  accumulate  as  they  would  do  in  a limited  space.  There  is  formed 
then  above  the  deck  a kind  of  cloud,  heavily  charged  with  smoke  and  irrespirable 
gases,  which  accompauies  the  boat  in  its  progress.  This  effect  is  aided,  moreover,  by 
the  impulse  given  to  the  air  within  the  tunnel  by  the  forward  movement  of  the  convoy, 
especially  if  one  of  the  boats  is  loaded  with  a raised  cargo,  which,  in  a manner,  forms 
a piston  and  presses  the  air  before  it.  Carbonic  acid,  which  alone  constitutes  nearly 
the  entire  volume  of  gas  produced  by  the  combustion  of  coke,  presents  of  itself  no 
serious  danger,  unless  when  mingled  in  large  proportion  with  the  air.  But  there  is 
also  produced  a small  quantity  of  carbonic  oxide  and  sulphurous  gas,  the  action  of 
which  is  very  much  more  to  be  feared.  The  carbonic  oxide  is  extremely  deleterious, 
and  can  even  in  small  quantities  produce  a real  x>oisoning,  of  which  the  first  symptoms 
are  vertigo,  accompanied  wirh  violent  headache,  weakness  in  the  legs,  and  sometimes 
vomiting.  The  crew  of  the  tow-boat  have  several  times,  after  traversing  the  tunnel, 
felt  these  effects.  However,  by  carefully  watching  the  fire,  taking  special  pains  not  to 
overload  the  grate  when  passing  through  the  tunnel,  these  troubles  may  be  almost 
avoided. 

“ The  sulphurous  acid,  notwithstanding  its  irritating  action  on  the  organs  of  respira- 
tion, x^resents  much  less  danger,  but  it  is  imx30ssible  to  prevent  its  formation,  all  cokes 
containing  some  traces  of  sulphur. 

“There  is  also  produced  a small  quantity  of  sulphureted  hydrogen,  the  presence  of 
which  is  explained  by  the  passage  through  the  incandescent  coke  of  the  small  jet  of 
steam  used  to  create  a draught.  This  gas  is  in  part  decomposed  by  the  moist  air  of  the 
tunnel  liberating  the  sulphur,  which  remains  in  a state  of  suspension  in  the  smoke,  giving 
to  it  a very  peculiar  milky  appearance.  When  the  gas  accumulates  on  the  tow-boat, 
the  decomposition  of  the  sulphureted  hydrogen  even  suffices  to  cover  certain  objects 
with  a light  coat  of  sulx)hur  powder.  The  cause  of  the  accidental  accumulation  of 
gas  being  known,  by  what  means  can  a remedy  be  apx^lied? 

“ The  only  means  insuring  efficacy  would  be  evidently  to  establish  at  the  two  ex- 
tremities of  the  tunnel  ventilating  furnaces,  with  movable  partitions  permitting  the 
current  to  be  reversed  at  will,  so  that  it  might  always  be  ox^posed  to  the  motion  of  the 
boat.  This  radical  solution,  admissible  in  the  case  of  a very  important  traffic,  would 
have  necessitated,  unfortunately,  at  -the  Pouilly  tunnel,  sacrifices  out  of  proportion  to 
the  very  restricted  trade,  and  it  became,  therefore,  necessary  to  have  recourse  to 
means  less  certain  without  doubt,  but  more  economical  in  application.  The  curbs  of 
the  shafts  have  been  raised  9 feet  10  inches  above  the  surface  of  the  ground,  and  the 
heavy  cast-iron  gratings  have  been  removed,  which  obstructed  about  half  their  open- 
ing. This  modification  has  sufficed  to  notably  increase  the  circulation  of  air  in  the 
tunnel.  The  shafts  are  4 feet  11  inches  in  diameter  ; their  axes  are  8 feet  from  that  of 
the  tunnel,  so  that  their  openings  do  not  debouche  from  the  crown  of  the  arch,  where 
the  gases  have  a tendency  to  accumulate.  It  would  then  be  advisable,  in  order  to  ren- 
der the  draught  more  energetic,  to  so  widen  the  lower  openings  of  the  shafts  as  to  join 
them  directly  with  the  crown  of  the  tunnel-arch.  This  oxieration  performed  at  one  of 
them  seems  to  have  produced  a good  result.  Another  very  simple  precaution  has  re- 
stored the  confidence  of  the  crews,  who  were  much  frightened  by  these  accidents,  tlie 
cause  of  which  escaped  them. 

“ The  accumulation  of  gas  being  due  to  an  accidental  coincidence  of  motion  between 
the  tow-boat  and  the  current  of  air  in  the  tunnel,  it  was  to  be  presumed  that  by  ar- 
resting the  motion  of  the  convoy  for  a few  moments  and  closing  the  smoke-stack  the 
current  of  air  would  resume  its  action  and  dissipate  the  gas.  A trial  confirmed  this 
supposition.  Instead  of  accelerating  the  movement,  as  was  at  first  injudiciously  done 
by  the  crew  of  the  tow-boat,  a few  minutes’  detention  sufficed  for  the  current  of  air  to 
carry  the  smoke  and  gas  far  in  advance,  and  it  rarely  happened  that  the  accumulation 
again  became  very  troublesome  in  the  course  of  the  same  passage. 

“An  im^jortaut  amelioration,  it  would  seem,  might  be  made  in  the  machine  itself; 
the  addition  of  an  apparatus  by  which  the  gas  issuing  from  the  smoke-stack  could  be 
cooled  and  even  purified  in  part.  This  might,  without  doubt,  be  accomplished  by  clos- 
ing the  chimney  and  forcing  the  gas  by  means  of  a bellows  into  a reservoir,  where  it 
would  have  to  traverse  a circuit  of  a greater  or  less  extent  in  contact  with  tlie  water 
of  the  canal,  and  then  expelled  at  the  surface-level.  At  present  the  warm  gases  tend 
to  accumulate  at  the  crown  of  the  arch,  there  forming  a local  atmosx^here  about  the 
heads  of  the  men  employed  on  the  deck  of  the  tow-boat.  expelling  them  in  a cold 
condition  at  the  water-surface,  these  gases,  for  the  greater  part  more  dense  than  the  air, 
would  have  little  tendency  to  rise,  and  would  become  intermingled  with  the  surround- 
ing atmosphere  by  the  movement  of  the  boats.  Their  contact  with  the  water  in  the 
cooler  would  have  the  additional  effect  of  dissolving  a great  part  of  the  sulphurous 
acid. 

“This  apparatus,  the  study  of  which  has  been  asked  of  the  constructor,  not  having  as 
yet  been  established,  the  amelioration  which  we  indicate  has  not  received  the  sane- 


694 


REPORT  OF  THE  CHIEF  OF  ENGINEERS. 


tioD  of  experience.  However,  and  althoiif^b  the  problem  of  ventilation  has  been  but 
imperfectly  solved  at  the  Ponilly  tunnel,  the  service  has  j^one  on  regularly  for  a year 
back  ; and  even  if  the  men  employed  in  this  service  are  sometimes  a littH  incommoded 
be  fears  which  they  had  conceived  in  the  beginning  have  been  completely  dispelled.” 

M.  Bazin,  writing  January  25,  1875,* *  says : “ The  service  is  performed  with  a perfect 
regularity,  and  it  is  exceedingly  rare  that  any  one  is  inconvenienced  by  the  gas.  This 
result  is  due  to  the  experience  acquired  by  the  personnel  and  especially  by  the  vigi- 
lance of  the  engineer  whom  we  have  had  since  September,  186S.  The  personal  influ- 
ence of  a good  engine-man  is  capital.  The  one  we  had  in  the  beginning  allowed  mat- 
ters to  take  their  chances,  and  it  is  without  doubt  to  his  negligence  we  must  attribute 
in  great  part  the  sad  accident  which  happened  in  the  summer  of  1868.  This  accident, 
account  of  which  was  rendered  to  the  administration,  and  probablj^  with  which  you 
are  therefore  familiar,  took  place  under  the  following  circumstances:  The  crew  of  the 
tow-boat  and  even  the  boatmen  found  themselves  very  much  incommoded  by  the  gas, 
which  a boat  with  an  elevated  cargo  contributed  to  retain  on  the  convoy.  The  men 
collected  on  the  tow-boat,  detached  the  tow-lines,  and  abandoned  the  boats  in  the  tun- 
nel. Unfortunately  they  had  not  been  able  to  bring  with  them  a boatman  who  was 
asleep  in  his  cabin.  This  man,  subjected  in  his  sleep  to  the  deleterious  action  of  the 
carbonic  oxide,  against  which  he  had  not  been  able  to  bear  up,  had  lost  consciousness, 
and  the  others  could  not  succeed  in  carrying  him  to  the  tow-boat.  When  they  returned 
to  the  abandoned  convoy  no  further  efiect  of  the  gas  was  felt,  but  the  unfortunate 
boatman,  in  spite  of  all  efforts,  died  on  the  following  day  without  return  to  conscious- 
ness. 

“The  new  engine-man,  who  has  been  employed  since  this  accident,  is  a very  careful 
person,  who  has  himself  made  successive  improvements  in  the  details  of  the  grates, 
which  in  the  first  tow-boat  were  certainly  defective.  The  intervals  between  the  grate- 
bars,  the  dimensions  of  the  openings,  have  been  so  modified  as  always  to  have  a clear 
fire. 

“The  first  boat  sent  by  M.  Claparede  had  a steam-blast  throwing  a jet  of  steam  be- 
neath the  grate.  Perceiving  a j) reduction  of  hydro-sulphuric  acid,  I caused  the  jet  to 
be  placed  in  the  smoke-stack,  but  the  crew  made  no  further  use  of  these  blasts,  which 
they  accused  of  having  contributed  to  the  previous  accidents. 

“According  to  the  exj)erience  of  the  engine-man,  it  is  always  necessary  to  enter  the 
tunnel  with  a clear  fire.  If  they  enter  with  a fire  imperfectly  lighted  and  with  too 
much  coal  on  the  grate,  the  action  of  the  blast  employed  to  hasten  combustion  wdll 
be  dangerous.  It  is  probable  that  a too  rapid  current  of  air  through  the  flue  forces 
out  the  carbonic  oxide  before  it  has  had  time  to  burn.  Finally,  although  the  service 
operates  perfectly  at  present,  the  question  of  ventilation  has  not  much  advanced. 
The  tonnage  which  we  have  to  move  is  too  small  to  render  costly  experiments  possible. 
I know  not  whether  this  question  has  been  more  fully  studied  on  the  St.  Quentin 
Canal,  where  the  importance  of  the  traffic  would  perfectly  justify  the  construction  of 
special  apparatus. 

“ Our  shafts  have  little  depth.  The  neck  of  Pouilly  is  very  depressed,  and  the  maxi- 
mum depth  is  131^  feet,  which  is  very  little  for  a tunnel  so  long.  The  intervals  vary 
from  524  to  656  feet.  In  the  beginning  these  shafts  were  located  in  couples — that  is  to 
say,  there  were  in  each  656  feet  two  shafts  131  feet  apart.  A certain  number  of  them 
were  closed  after  the  completion  of  the  works,  and  generally  there  remains  but  one 
shaft  of  each  couple. 

#***#*# 

“It  is  to  be  regretted  that,  operating  on  such  a small  scale,  we  cannot  undertake 
a complete  study  of  this  question,  difficult  and  now  obscure.” 

In  the  letter  relating  to  the  St.  Quentin  tunnel,  previously  referred  to,  is  the  follow- 
ing valuable  information : 

“ In  1868  steam-towage  with  submerged  chain,  heretofore  considered  impossible,  was 
inaugurated.  Since  then  it  has  been  saccessfully  organized  aud  perfected.  It  is  at  the 
present  time  in  operation  with  regularity  and  success,  by  means  of  two  tow-boats,  each 
of  which  traverses  twice  per  day  half  the  summit-level,  being  about  l:;f  miles  going 
and  returning.  When  a third  boat,  now  in  construction,  will  be  finished,  the  regular- 
ity of  the  service  will  be  perfect,  as  a tow-boat  in  need  of  repairs  can  be  temporarily 
replaced. 

“The  long  tunnel  of  the  St.  Quentin  Canal,  which  extends  from  Macquincourt  to 
Riqueval,  presents  a development  of  18,603  feet.  Shafts  located  at  distances  of  100 
meters,  and  numbered  from  the  Riqueval  end,  were  excavated  in  its  construction.  The 
sides  of  the  tunnel  are  protected  by  a masonry  revetmeut  for  9,515  feet  ouljq  being  little 
more  than  half  its  length.  Throughout  the  remainder  the  chalk  forms  the  sides  of  the 
gallery.  The  limestone  there  is  very  much  affected  by  the  frost,  and  it  has  been  con- 
sidered indispensable  to  stop  up  all  the  shafts,  and  to  complete  the  closure  by  a system 

* Letter  to  M.  Malezieux,  transmitted  to-Brofessor  Andrews,  U.  S.  M.  A.,  for  General 

J.  G.  Barnard. 


APPENDIX  V. 


695 


of  turniuor-floors,  by  means  of  which  the  tunnel  may  be  closed  at  the  extremities  dur- 
ing freezing  weather.  The  ventilation  had  been  imperfect  and  the  employment  of 
steam  in  towing  of  boats  had  been  despaired  of.  It  has  been  accomplished,  however, 
by  the  following  precautions: 

“ 1st.  The  9 shafts,  Nos.  5,  14,  18,  25,  29,  32,  37,  44,  and  49,  have  been  reopened. 

“ 2d.  Their  upper  extremities  have  been  extended  by  chimneys  3 to  4 meters  in  height. 

“3d.  The  tow-boat  for  traversing  the  tunnel  burns  coke,  and  the  use  of  a powerful 
blast  renders  the  production  of  smoke  almost  nothing. 

“ The  shafts  are  of  variable  depths,  from  130  to  330  feet.  Thanks  to  these  precau- 
tions, the  passage  of  the  tunnel  is  effected  without  any  person  ever  complaining  of 
having  been  inconvenienced.  As  to  the  action  of  frost  on  the  non-revetted  sides  of  the 
tunnel,  its  effect  is  scarcely  sensible.  When  the  temperature  lowers  and  the  traffic  is 
arrested  by  ice  the  doors  of  the  tunnel  are  closed,  and  the  circulation  of  air  almost 
ceases.’’ 

The  experience  of  these  two  long  canal-tunnels  demonstrates  a number  of  important 
facts.  Among  the  number  are : 

1st.  lliat  steam-towing  has  been  successfal. 

2d.  That  to  overcome  the  difficulties  of  veutilatiou,  special  devices  in  the  machinery 
of  the  tow-boat  have  been  necessary. 

3d.  That  coke  should  be  used. 

4th.  That  it  is  desirable  to  have  as  few  steamers  in  operation  as  possible  at  one  time 
within  the  tunnel. 

Special  steamers  will  therefore  be  necessary,  and  the  boats  should  move  in  fleets. 
This  is  true,  eveu  if  the  tunnel  be  wide  enough  for  passing  everywhere,  or  two  single 
tunue's  be  used.  lu  the  latter  case,  if  the  boats  were  to  use  their  own  steam-power, 
there  would  be  with  a full  trade  probably  more  than  thirty  boats  in  each  tunnel,  all 
steaming  at  once,  while,  if  the  boats  were  moved  in  fleets,  there  would  be  but  one 
steamer  to  each  fleet.  Besides,  these  tow-boats  would  have  special  appliances  to 
decrease  the  quantity  of  smoke  and  gases,  which  would  be  too  much  to  ask  of  all  boats 
doing  business  on  the  canal.  ^ 

Believing  the  necessities  for  special  tow-boats  to  be  evident  from  what  precedes, 
further  discussion  is  not  attempted. 

To  move  boats  in  fleets,  the  method  by  submerged  chain  is  undoubtedly  the  best. 
There  is  comparatively  little  loss  of  power.  The  method  is  very  simple  in  its  arrange- 
ment. It  consists  of  a chain  or  cable,  (wire,)  laid  on  the  bottom,  securely  attached  at 
the  ends,  with  a tow-boat  arrange  I to  maneuver  along  it. 

What  is  most  important,  it  has  been  put  to  the  test  of  actual  experience,  and  is  there- 
fore not  at  all  experimental.  In  France  this  method  has  received  extensive  applica- 
tion on  the  rivers,  and  is  also  in  use  in  a portion  of  the  Erie  Canal,  under  the  name  of 
the  Belgian  system  of  towing. 

My  opinion  as  at  present  formed  is  in  favor  of  using  a chain,  on  account  of  the 
facility  of  repair.  A break  in  a wire  cable  would  require  an  expert  to  splice  it.  This 
would  be  difficult  to  do  if  there  were  not  considerable  slack  available,  as  there  would 
not  be  in  this  instance.  The  chaius  used  are  made  in  sectionSj  connected  by  links, 
which  may  be  readily  opened.  The  section  containing  a broken  link  may  then  be 
removed  at  any  time,  and  a new  section  put  in  its  place.  A supply  is  always  kept  on 
the  tow-boat  for  emergencies. 

For  greater  security  I would  recommend  that  the  tow-boat  be  provided  with  a pul- 
ley on  each  side,  and  that  two  chaius  be  laid  on  the  bottom  at  a distance  apart  equal 
to  the  width  of  the  tow-boat.  This  would  be  very  necessary  in  a tunnel  with  a cur- 
rent, so  that  if  one  chain  broke  the  fleets  would  still  have  one  to  hold  to;  otherwise 
all  the  boats  eastward  of  the  break  would  be  washed  into  the  basin  of  the  eastern 
approach.  The  chain  has  the  further  advantage  of  greater  friction  on  the  bottom,  as 
compared  with  the  wire  cable. 

The  chain  will  have  an  important  use  in  assisting,  by  the  application  of  proper 
brakes,  the  retardation  of  the  descending  fleets  preparatory  to  hauling  them  into  the 
recesses.  Two  chaius  will  be  advantageous  in  this  maneuver.  The  chain  always  has 
a tendency  to  draw  to  the  inner  side  of  a bend,  and  if  it  did  do  so  would  prevent  the 
progress  of  the  tow-boat.  A rapid  current  corrects  this  tendency,  or,  if  the  water- 
course be  wide,  the  steering  power  of  the  boat  will  compel  the  chain  to  remain  in  the 
channel.  Within  a tunnel  we  can  depend  on  neither  of  these  aids,  and  there  must  be 
no  tendency  of  this  kind. 

PEUFECT  STRAIGHTNESS  IS  NECESSARY. 

Attention  is  now  invited  to  sheet  No.  1 of  the  summit  division.  Mr.  Hutton’s  pro- 
posed tunnel  of  1870  is  laid  out  on  a curve,  so  as  to  decrease  the  depth  of  shafting,  by 
placing  them  farther  toward  the  valley  than  the  surveyed  or  experimental  line.  By 
increasing  the  depth  of  shafting,  this  location  could  be  made  perfectly  straight.  No 
straight  line  can  be  located  within  the  ’units  of  the  survey  of  1874  from  Brush  Creek 


696 


EEPOET  OF  THE  CHIEF  OF  ENGINEEES. 


to  tlie  Greenbrier  River  direct  without  great  depth  of  shafting  or  great  distances- 
between  them.  From  the  initial  point  of  this  direct  line  (designated  Northern  line, 
1874)  to  the  south  fork  of  Howard’s  Creek  the  ravines  fall  to  the  north  of  the  line,  and 
a very  good  location  can  be  obtained  on  that  side,  straight  to  the  Greenbrier  Mount- 
ain. The  best  line  for  tunneling  this  mountain  is  by  way  of  the  two  ravines  imme- 
diately south  of  the  line.  But  this  line  makes  an  angle  with  any  straight  line  from 
Brush  Creek  to  the  Greenbrier,  and  is  therefore  not  available  for  our  purposes.  If  we 
limit  the  depth  of  shafting  to  about  600  feet,  the  best  straight  line  through  here  is 
from  Brush  Creek  to  a point  in  that  ravine  debouching  into  the  valley  of  Howard’s 
Creek,  north  of  the  line,  and  heading  near  station  507  + 33.  We  would  have  on  this 
location  one  shaft  (eastern)  GOO  feet  in  depth,  and  one  (western)  520  feet,  with  a distance 
between  of  9,450  feet. 

Estimating  30  feet  per  month  for  shaft-excavation,  and  100  feet  for  tunnel-heading, 
the  time  of  completion  would  slightly  exceed  sixty-six  months.  The  length  of  the 
tunnel  would  be  about  50,500  feet. 

On  the  southern  line,  from  Brush  Creek  to  the  south  fork  of  Howard’s,  the  ravines- 
fall  to  the  south.  Beyond  the  railroad,  there  is  a ravine  south  of  the  line,  heading 
near  station  368  -f-  50.  On  the  other  side  of  the  crest  the  ravines  fall  to  the  north,  but 
shafting  may  be  obtained  south  of  the  line,  and  lower  down  the  ravines  than  for  Hut- 
ton’s location.  A straight  line  may  then  be  obtained  from  Brush  Creek  to  Howard’s 
Creek,  south  of  the  surveyed  line.  This  line  is  chosen  for  the  following  reasons  : It  has 
much  more  advantageous  shafting  than  either  of  the  others  as  to  depth,  distance  be- 
tween shafts,  and  proximity  of  location  to  railroad  ; it  requires  about  9,000  feet  less 
tunnel  than  the  line  from  Brush  Creek  to  the  Greenbrier  direct,  and  while  the  tunnel 
is  somewhat  longer  than  Hutton’s  proposed  tunnel  of  1870*^,  there  is  saved  more  than 
13,000  feet  of  canal  on  the  eastern  slope. 

The  necessity  of  towing  the  boats  through  the  tunnel  in  fleets  being  admitted,  there 
must  be  a basin  of  suitable  dimensions  at  each  end.  As  the  line  must  enter  the  valley 
of  Howard’s  Creek  below  the  level  of  the  stream,  on  account  of  water-supply,  the 
basin  at  this  end  is  readily  obtained  by  biyldiog  a dam  at  a proper  point,  and  a basin 
may  be  obtained  in  Brush  Creek  Valley  in  the  same  way. 

The  elevation  of  the  tunnel,  which  is  the  summit,  should  be  no-^  fixed.  The  eleva- 
tion of  1,700  feet  above  tide  was  recommended  by  Mr.  Lorraine,  and  adopted  for  Hut- 
ton’s location  of  1870.  On  account  of  the  expensive  approach  in  Howard’s  Creek,  it 
has  been  suggested  to  raise  the  summit  20  feet.  (See  Mr.  Latrobe’s  letter  to  Chief  of 
Engineers,  supplementary  to  the  report  of  the  board  of  engineers,  March  19,  1874.) 

Various  considerations  enter  the  discussion  of  this  question.  If  the  lower  level  be  ^ 
adopted,  the  basin  in  Brush  Creek  Valley  (see  sheet  No.  2,  summit  division)  may  be" 
formed  by  a dam  a short  distance  below  station  77  -4-  50,  and  the  tunnel  should  de- 
bouch near  the  u])per  end  of  the  pool.  This  pool  will  have  about  1,800  feet  effective 
length;  its  total  length  will  be  somew^hat  more.  If  the  higher  level  be  chosen,  the 
dam  may  be  located  at  station  89,  giving  a pool  of  abouf,  the  same  effective  length  as 
the  other.  There  is  scarcely  enough  difference  in  the  capacity  of  these  pools  to  have 
weight  in  the  decision.  A basin  of  necessary  capacity  for  either  level  may  be  obtained 
in  Howard’s  Creek. 

The  valley  of  this  creek  (see  sheet  No.  3,  summit  division)  below  Hart’s  Run  to 
Caldwell’s  station  is  narrow  and  tortuous.  Near  the  point  where  Hutton’s  line  of 
1870  debouches  is  a rock-spur  80  to  100  feet  above  the  vuilley,  and  causing  it  to  make 
an  abrupt  bend.  From  station  582 -f- 47.8  up  the  valley,  for  about  1.000  feet,  high 
ground,  having  the  character  of  a bluff,  comes  very  close  to  the  line.  The  level  of  the 
creek  near  here  is  about  1,744  feet — too  high  to  permit  it  to  enter  the  canal  at  the 
higher  level.  For  either  level,  the  cutting  will  be  deep  and  long.  It  must  also  be 
wide  if  it  pass  around  the  bend  ; in  which  case  the  creek  should  be  passed  through 
the  spur.  To  avoid  this,  I recommend  that  the  creek  bo  passed  over  the  cut,  and  that 
the  spur  be  tunneled  for  the  canal.  The  canal  and  creek  wall  then  connect  below.  If 
we  suppose  the  creek-bottom  4 feet  above  the  crown  of  the  aquedu3t-arch,  and  that  20 
feet  be  as  little  as  can  be  admitted  between  the  water-surface  and  the  crown,  then  the 
w'ater-surface  can  be  no  higher  than  (1720.)  This  is,  therefore,  taken  as  the  superior 
limit  of  the  elevation  of  the  summit  [?.  e.  with  “canal  bottom  ” at  (1713.)] 

We  can  now  locate  the  funnel-lines  for  these  two  levels,  (1713)  and  (1700.)  It  is  de- 
sirable to  have  the  approach  cut  in  the  valley  of  Howard’s  Creek  straight,  and  in  the 
prolongation  of  the  tnunel,  so  that  the  cut  may  be  no  wider  than  the  tunnel  and  the 
towage  by  submerged  chain  may  be  used  from  one  basin  to  the  other. 

The  low  bluff  above  station  582  -f-  48  should  be  avoided,  and  in  Brush  Creek  Valley 
the  tunnel  should  debouch  so  as  to  utilize  the  basin  corresponding  to  the  level  taken. 
The  eastern  portal  for  the  (1700)  level  is  taken  near  the  upper  extremity  of  the  1700 
curve.  The  entire  pool  will  then  be  below.  Line  “A”  is  the  line  recommended  for  this 
level.  For  the  (1713)  level  line  “B”  is  recommended.  This  line  has  almost  the  identical 

* Hutton’s  tunnel  is  40,380  feet  in  length.  'Ihe  tunnel  now  recommended  is  41,505. 


APPENDIX  V. 


697 


lo-ation  of  approach  in  Howard’s  Creek  as  the  (1700)  level,  (see  sheet  No.  3,  summit  di- 
vision) bnt  debouclies  in  the  valley  of  Brash  Creek  at  the  upper  extremity  of  the  (1720) 
curve.  These  lines,  as  shown  on  sheet  No.  1,  are  the  lines  of  shafting.  If  the  lower 
level  be  taken,  it  is  intended  the  tunnel  and  approaches  shall  be  north  of  the  shafts, 
while  the  opposite  is  intended  for  the  higher  level. 

The  basin  in  Howard’s  Creek  Valley  is  formed  in  each  case  by  a dam  jurt  below  sta- 
tion 106  -f  73  of  the  Howard’s  Creek  line. 

Each  of  these  lines  has  advantages  and  disadvantages  peculiar  to  itself,  and  it  is 
thought  best  to  place  a statement  of  them  side  by  side  the  better  to  judge  of  the  merits 
of  each. 


Upper  level. 


Lower  level. 


Length  of  main  tunnel,  41,505  feet. 

It  is  probable  that  shaft  No.  6 of  this 
line  is  unavailable  from  depth  and  diffi- 
culty of  approach. 

By  shafts  Vis,  and  7,  the  excavation  will 
require  57^  months. 

I5y  shafts  Nos.  5 Vis,  and  8,  the  excava- 
tion will  require  62.13  months. 

By  shafts  1 and  3 Us,  Lewis  Mountain 
will  be  tunneled  in  47.5  months. 

By  shafts  1 and  3 Us,  Lewis  Mountain 
will  be  tunneled  in  48f  months. 

Pumping  will  stop  at  shaft  No.  1 in 
eleven  months,  and  the  eastern  heading 
of  Lewis  Mountain  will  be  open  to  the 
portal. 


Length  of  main  tunnel,  4.3,040  feet;  be- 
ing 1,540  feet  longer  than  for  higher  level. 

By  using  shafts  Nos.  2,  6,  and  7 of  this 
line,  the  tunnel  may  be  excavated  in  50| 
months. 

By  shafts  5 Us,  and  7,  the  excavation 
will  require  59f  months. 

By  shafts  Nos.  5 Us,  and  8,  the  excava- 
tion will  require  64|  months. 

By  shafts  1 and  3,  Lewis  Mountain  wilt 
be  tunneled  in  51|  months. 

The  eastern  heading  of  Lewis  Mountain 
will  not  be  open  to  the  portal  till  the  end 
of  the  twenty-second  month.  This  is  quit© 
an  advantage  to  the  upper  level. 


It  is  thus  seen  that,  for  time  of  excavation,  the  only  apparent  advantage  possessed 
by  the  lower  level,  exclusive  of  lockage,  is  the  availability  of  shaft  No.  6,  and  less  time 
for  the  excavation  of  the  headings  between  shafts  Nos.  3 and  4,  and  between  shafts 
Nos.  4 and  5,  or  5 Us.  In  the  estimates  made  for  times  of  excavation,  30  feet  per  month 
is  allowed  for  shaft-excavation,  and  100  feet  per  month  for  tunnel-heading.  These 
rates  of  progress  are  taken  the  same  whether  the  headings  be  driven  from  deei)  or 
shallow  shafts  or  from  a portal. 

By  omitting  shaft  No.  6,  the  upper  level  has  the  advantage  in  time  of  excavation, 
which  it  retains,  if  shafts  Nos.  7 and  2 be  omitted. 

In  considering  how  fa.r  the  omission  of  these  shafts  will  delay  the  execution  of  the 
work,  the  experiences  at  other  works  of  this  kind  are  interesting. 

Mr.  H.  D.  Whitcomb  writes  me  as  follows,  relating  to  the  Great  Bend  Tunnel  : “Ido 
not  know  that  I found  any  difference  in  penetrating  from  shafts  or  portals.  So  long  as 
the  hoisting-power  is  sufficient,  there  can  be  no  material  difference.”  (He  states  very 
little  water  was  found.) 

The  earlier  progress  of  the  Hoosac  Tunnel  affords  no  criterion  of  the  progress  to  be 
here  expected,  and  we  can  only  use  the  results  from  the  time  Messrs.  Shanty  commenced 
operations  in  1869.  The  central  shaft  was  already  excavated  to  a d(q)th  of  583  feet, 
leaving  445  feet  to  grade.  Work  commenced  here  May  20,  1869,  and  the  excavation 
reached  grade  August  12,  1870,  in  little  less  than  fifteen  mouths,  the  rate  being  30.1 
feet  per  month. 

When  it  is  considered  that  this  progress  was  in  the  lower  half  of  a shaft  1,028  feet 
deep,  it  may  well  be  assumed  that  the  excavation  will  be  much  more  rapid  in  the 
shafts  of  the  Alleghany  Tunnel,  especially  in  those  shafts  less  than  300  feet  in 
depth.  In  the  Hoosac  Tunnel,  1869,  the  average  monthly  progress  from  portal-head- 
ings was  137.7  feet;  in  1870,  119.3  feet;  in  1871,  130  feet;  in  ls72,  133  feet;  and  in 
1873,  135  feet. 

Two  and  four-tenths  months  were  employed,  after  the  shaft  was  sunk,  in  prepara- 
tions for  the  tunnel-extension,  such  as  trimming  the  sides  of  the  shafts,  repairing  and 
strengthening  the  timbers  and  girders,  in  the  removal  of  the  pipes  and  pumping-ma- 
chinery provided  by  the  State  which  were  used  while  making  the  shaft,  and  the  re- 
placing them  by  mains  and  pumps  of  larger  capacity.  Much  of  this  time  might  havm 
been  saved  had  the  original  preparations  been  adequate.  The  shaft,  as  has  been  stated^ 
reached  grade  August  12,  1870.  Owing  to  the  above  delays  and  the  breaking  of  ma- 
chinery, only  60  feet  advance  was  made  at  one  heading  from  this  shaft,  and  87  feet  at 
the  other  heading,  to  January  1, 1871.  During  the  next  year  only  277  feet  were  driven 
from  one  of  these  headings,  and  153  feet  from  the  other.  In  1872,  better  progress  was 
made,  at  one  heading  1,226  feet  being  driven,  (in  Ilf  mouths,)  while  but  119  feet  ad- 
vance was  made  at  the  other.  “ The  advance  of  this  heading  was  suspended  during 
more  than  ten  months  of  the  year,  by  reason  of  enforced  delays  arising  out  of  the  large 
volume  of  water  encountered,  and  an  apprehension  of  developing  a further  increase  of 


698 


KEPOBT  OF  THE  CHIEF  OP  ENGINEERS. 


quantity,  which  would  exceed  the  resources  of  the  pumping-machinery  provided  for 
its  removal.'’'^ 

It  will  be  seen  that  the  progress  at  one  heading  was  a little  more  than  100  feet  per 
month,  and  it  probably  would  have  been  as  rapid  at  the  other,  had  it  not  been  for  the 
fear  of  water,  or  had  sufficient  pumping-machinery  been  provided.  Even  the  former 
shows  much  less  progress  than  the  portal-headings.  Shafts  2 and  6 are  more  difficult 
of  access  than  Nos.  1 and  5,  or  5 his,  and  preparations  could  not  be  made  at  the  former 
as  soon  as  at  the  latter. 

Eeferring  now  to  the  profile  of  line  A,  (sheet  No.  1,  summit  division,)  we  see  that 
by  our  original  assumption  the  headings  between  shafts  Nos.  5 and  6 will  meet  at  a 
point  1,343  feet  from  the  latter,  and  shaft  No.  6 will  be  used  for  the  excavation  of  2,686 
feet  of  tunnel  to  this  time. 

If  shaft  No.  5 his  be  used,  instead  of  No.  5,  the  headings  will  meet  93  feet  from  shaft 
No.  6,  and  only  1,866  feet  will  be  excavated  by  means  of  this  latter  shaft  up  to  this  time. 
The  time  saved  by  the  use  of  shaft  No.  6,  as  computed,  is  nine  and  one-fourth  mouths, 
but  the  practical  saving  would  undoubtedly  be  less  than  this,  on  account  of  the  greater 
accessibility  of  the  shorter  shaft  and  greater  liability  to  accidental  contingencies  of 
the  longer  one. 

Merely  as  a matter  of  opinion,  I would  say  the  real  saving  of  time  would  be  about 
6 months. 

We  will  assume  6 months’  saving  of  time.  Shafts  No.  5 his  and  7 of  line  B differ 
little  in  their  circumstances  from  the  corresponding  shafts  of  line  A,  the  former  being 
20  feet  less  in  depth,  the  latter  40  greater.  The  computed  difference  in  time  of  exca- 
vation is  months  in  favor  of  line  B.  We  will  call  it  2 months,  omitting  the  as 
the  advantage  which  shaft  No.  7 of  Bne  A has  over  shaft  7 of  line  B.  Line  A would 
then  have  but  4 months’  advantage  over  line  B in  time  of  execution  in  the  tunueling 
of  Kate’s  Mountain.  Assuming  equal  progress  at  all  shafts  and  all  headings,  the  head- 
ings between  shafts  No.  1 and  No.  2 of  line  A would  meet  at  a point  683  feet  from  shaft 
No.  2,  and  1,366  feet  of  tunnel  up  to  this  time  be  excavated  through  this  latter.  The 
time  saved  by  this  shaft  is  computed  at  6.83  months.  If  we  suppose  the  same  decrease 
of  time  saved  in  practice  as  was  assumed  for  shaft  No.  6,  liue  A will  present  no  advan- 
tage whatever  in  the  time  of  tunneling  Lewis  Mountain  over  line  B,  even  if  we  sup- 
pose shaft  2 to  be  used  in  the  former  and  omitted  in  the  latter. 

The  shore  tunnel  in  Howard’s  Creek  Valley  is  56  feet  longer  for  the  lower  than  for 
the  higher  level. 

The  final  determination  of  the  cross-section  of  the  tunnel  should  now  be  made. 

If  passing-places  be  decided  upon,  that  fact  should  be  taken  into  consideration. 
That  the  towing  should  be  by  submerged  chain  is  assumed.  The  boats  should  then 
follow  the  axis  of  the  tunnel,  and  the  widths  of  turn-outs  should  be  sufficient  to  admit 
of  boats  passing  easily.  The  width  of  boats  is  taken  at  23  feet  6 inches.  For  the  main 
tunnel  section,  the  printed  form,  as  suggested  by  Mr.  Latrobe,  is  the  best,  affording 
good  heights,  with  least  excavation,  besides  being  the  shape  which  the  excavation 
will  naturally  assume. 


Our  estimates  for  the  power  necessary  for  the  tow-boat  have  been  made  for  a sup- 
posed water-way  31  feet  6 inches  in  width  at  the  surface  and  11  feet  deep.  With  these 
data,  the  adjoined  diagram  of  section  at  turn-out  is  constructed. 

* Report  of  standing  committee  on  the  Troy  and  Greenfield  Railroad  and  Hoosac 
Tunnel  for  1872. 


APPENDIX  V. 


699 


The  height  of  the  crown  of  the  main  tunnel  is  assumed  24  feet. 

One-half  the  width  of  the  main  tunnel  section  is 15'. 9" 

One-half  the  width  of  boat  is IP.G''' 

Clear  space  between  boats 1'.9" 

Width  of  boat  in  recess 23'.6" 

Wooden  fenders  built  in  the  w^all  of  recess  (to  preserve  boats  from  injury  by 
the  waves)  projecting 0'.3" 


Total  width  (water-surface)  at  recess 53'. 0" 


This  is,  certainly,  as  little  width  as  can  be  given  with  the  assumed  widths  of  boat 
and  of  main  tuunel. 


Cost  per  foot  of  ordinary  tuunel — 

Brick $56.  66666 

Stone 12.  21629 

Excavation 182.  77777 


251.  66074 


Excess  of  recess  over  ordinary  tunnel 


Cost  per  foot  of  recess — 


Brick $79  20 

Stone 13  04 

Excavation 242  95 


435  19 
251  66 

183  53 


This  section  is  taken  as  the  basis  for  estimates. 

The  lower  level  exceeds  in  cost  the  upper  level  by  the  following  items : 


1,591  feet  of  tunnel,  at  $251|-  per  foot $400,  401  67 

252.415.82  cubic  yards  of  rock-excavation,  at  $1  per  yard 252,  415  82 

7.5,159.74  cubic  yards  of  loose  rock-excavation,  at  50  cents  per  yard 37,579  87 

1,140  feet  of  shafting,  (10  by  40  by  1,140,)  16,888,889  cubic  yards,  at  $10  per 

yard 168, 888  89 

358.82  cubic  yards  of  dam-masonry,  at  $8  per  yard 2, 879  81 


Total - 862, 157  06 

This  is  partially  offset  by  the  following  items,  in  which  the  upper  level  exceeds  the 
lower  in  cost : 


9,714.17  cubic  yards  embankment,  at  25  cents $2, 428  54 

8,635.35  cubic  yards  excavation,  at  30  cents 2,590  60 

12,888.90  cubic  yards  lock-masonry,  at  $9 116,000  10 

Lumber  for  7 locks,  at  $3,400 23,  800  00 

Gates  and  miter-sills,  at  $3,150 22, 050  00 


Total 166, 869  24 

The  cost  of  the  lower  level  we  see  to  be  nearly  or  quite  $700,000  in  excess  of  the 
higher,  while  the  saving  in  the  time  of  excavation  will  be,  at  the  outside,  but  6:^  months. 

Considering  the  cost  of  the  entire  line,’ I do  not  think  the  lower  level  to  possess  suffi- 
cient advantages  to  balance  this  excess  of  cost,  and  the  level  of  1,713  feet  above  tide  is 
therefore  recommended. 

If  the  boats  be  passed  through  the  tuunel  in  fleets  and  turn-outs  be  adopted,  the 
times  of  departure  should  be  at  equal  intervals.  The  proper  intervals  between  the 
departures  of  successive  fleets  should  be  established  before  determining  the  number 
and  dimensions  of  the  turn-outs.  The  convenience  of  commerce  requires  that  it  be  as 
short  as  possible,  while  the  minimum  expenditure  of  power  requires  that  fleets  be  as 
large  as  can  be  handled  easily.  We  will  suppose  the  interval  to  be  two  hours;  assum- 
ing eight  lockages  in  this  time  in  each  direetiou,  the  fleets  will  consist  of  eight  boats. 
Two  fleets  will  then  emerge  each  two  hours,  (oue  from  each  portal.)  In  the  formula 
n=:Nv, N will  then  equal  unity;  n will  conform  to  v.  For  economy  of  power  the  rate 
of  movement  should  be  slow,  while  economy  of  construction  requires  that  it  should  be 
rapid. 

The  following  table  (IV)  is  formed  by  reducing  the  velocities  in  Table  I to  1 mile 
per  hour,  assuming  the  resistances  to  vary  as  the  squares  of  the  velocities,  and  taking 
the  supposition  as  correct  that  the  resistance  for  the  first  boat  per  unit  of  submerged 
section  is  double  that  per  unit  for  the  succeeding  boats  of  the  same  fleet.  Experiment 
6 is  omitted,  as  the  fleet  w^as  formed  of  rafts. 


700 


REPORT  OF  THE  CHIEF  OF  ENGINEERS. 


Table  IV. 


Xumber  of  exj  erimeat. 


! -g 

I 


1 


2 


3 


4 


5 


|1 


1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

‘2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 


A 

B 

C 


I 64.  04 


128.  08 


SCO.  1 
.s;-^8. 5 
400.6 


‘'<2. 12 


• 68.  89 


57.  05 


144.  24 


104.  83 


580.4 

519.3 

.564.  8 
G.)8.  5 
599.6 


K 

L 


I 65.  66 


73.  73 


05 


760.6 
693.  7 


M 

X 

0 


^ 69.  96 


87. 19 


227. 11 


( 634.  4 

< 793. 6. 

(.  656. 2 


3.  905 

4.  665 
3.  8-22 

4.024 
3.  600 

2.  899 

3.  123 
3.  077 

3.  709 
3.  386 

2.  793 

3.  494 
2.  889 


1^3  T 
^ 3 U 


I 71.  04 


130. 78 


272.  86 


1,  048.  6 
1,021.5 


3.  843 
3.  780 


3 V 
3 W 
3 X 


I 72.  66 


135.  63 


280.  95 


1,  036.  8 
1,171.9 
1, 151.  6 


3.  699 
4. 171 

4.  099 


74.  47 


401.  50 


550.  44 


1,906.' 


3.  464 


The  arrangement  of  this  table  has  made  apparent  a fact  which  had  escaped  atten- 
tion before,  viz,  that  in  those  experiments  in  which  three  results  are  given,  the  second 
shows  invariably  a greater  resistance  than  either  of  the  others.  The  direction  of 
movement  of  the  different  boats  or  fleets  was  the  same  in  all,  and  the  second  result 
refers  to  the  middle  of  the  tunnel,  where  the  resistance  was  then  greater  than  at  either 
end.  In  the  second,  fourth,  and  seventh  experiments,  the  first  velocity  and  resistance 
noted  were  near  the  middle  of  the  tunnel,  the  second  nearer  the  farther  end,  thus 
confirming  the  indications  of  the  first,  third,  fifth,  and  eighth  experiments. 

In  the  ninth  experiment  the  space  passed  over  was  from  near  the  middle  to  near  the 
end.  It  is  necessary,  therefore,  in  discussing  ihe  results  of  sucli  experiments,  to  con- 
sider this  fact,  and  not  to  compare  the  data  furnished  from  different  portions  of  the 
tunnel  with  each  other.  It  is  to  he  inferred  that  if  the  tunnel  were  longer,  the  resistance 
near  the  middle  would  he  still  greater  than  here  noted. 

Considering  the  small  number  of  experiments,  this  table  demonstrates  in  a remark- 
able manner  the  deduction  of  M.  Bazin  from  Table  I,  which  is,  that  the  co-efficient  of 
resistance  for  each  boat  following  the  first  in  a fleet  may  with  safety  be  taken  as  one- 
half  this  co-efficient  for  the  first  boat. 

The  third  part  of  the  eighth  experiment  is-apparently  an  excention  to  this  rule,  but 
in  this  part  the  point  of  departure  was  640  feet  nearer  the  middle  of  the  tunnel  than 
the  point  of  departure  for  the  third  part  of  the  first  experiment,  though  the  terminus 
was  the  same  in  each  case. 

An  inspection  of  Table  IV  would  seem  to  show  that  in  our  calculations  for  the  power 
necessary  for  our  tow-boat,  we  may  assume  5 pounds  resistance  per  unit  of  total  sub- 
merged area  [=(8-{-l)  (23'.5x6'.5j  =1374.75,]  and  the  total  resistance  for  1 mile  per 
hour  =6873.75.  With  the  proposed  area  of  water-section,  I estimate  that  the  current 
through  the  tunnel  would  be  one-third  mile  per  hour  to  feed  the  canal  east  of  the 
summit-level.  If  we  suppose  that  one-third  mile  per  hour  will  be  necessary,  in  addi- 
tion, to  overcome  this  current,  there  will  be  required  1*2,220  pounds  total  traction. 

Labrousse  deduces  the  following  formula  for  the  useful  elfect  of  trac'ion  with  sub- 
merged chains : 


V 255 

H represents  the  depth  of  water  in  meters,  but  is  really  the  vertical  distance  from 
the  bottom  to  the  point  where  the  chain  leaves  the  pulley.  We  will  be  safe  to  as- 


APPENDIX  V. 


701 


-sume  this  distance  at  5 meters.  The  tension  of  the  chain  as  it  leaves  the  pulley  (which 
is  the  resistance  to  be  overcome  by  the  machine  neglecting  its  own  friction)  is  then 
12,338  pounds.  The  work  of  the  machine  at  this  point  will  be,  say,  44.1  horse  power. 

In  these  estimates  the  resistance  of  the  tow-boat  itself  has  been  neglected,  but  we 
have  considered  the  westward-bound  boats  alone,  and  supposed  each  to  be  loaded  to 
6 feet  6 inches.  It  is  probable  that  the  draught  of  even  heavily-loaded  boats  will  not 
exceed  6 feet  4 inches,  and  many  of  the  w^estward  boats  will  be  lightly  loaded. 

I think  two-thirds  of  the  above  estimate  of  total  submerged  area  are  to  be  sufficient 
for  westward  fleets.  The  actual  velocity  of  1 mile  per  hour  being  obtained,  one  turn- 
out per  mile  will  be  necessary. 

At  times,  if  sufficient  water  flows  in  Brush  Creek  after  heavy  rains  to  supply  tempo- 
rarily the  quantity  necessary  for  the  canal  to  Dunlap’s  Creek,  (in  which  the  water  will 
aLso  t)e  high,)  there  will  be  no  current  in  the  tunnel,  and  the  formula  a = N (v  n t) 
must  be  satisfied.  Substituting  for  n and  N their  values,  we  have  v t = 1;  that  is, 
the  time  of  passing  from  one  turn-out  to  another,  (being  one  mile  apart,)  added  to  the 
time  lost  at  a turn-out,  must  not  exceed  one  hour.  We  have  calculated  the  resistance 
for  1-J-  miles  per  hour;  v will  then  be  f,  and  t must  not  exceed  ^ of  an  hour,  or  15  min- 
utes. This  would  seem  ample  time  for  the  maneuver  at  the  turn-out  in  still  water. 

The  next  thing  to  be  considered  is  whether  the  strain  may  not  exceed  the  strength 
of  a chain  of  ordinary  dimensions.  If  w^e  neglect  the  friction  on  the  bottom,  the 
greatest  strain  occurs  when  all  the  fleets  moving  in  the  same  direction  are  alone  using 
the  chain.  This  will  happen  when  the  eastward  fleets  are  all  in  the  turn-outs  at  once, 
which  may  frequently  occur.  We  must  then  provide  sufficient  strength  for  5 fleets. 
A chain  employed  on  the  Upper  Seine*  is  made  from  0.886-inch  iron,  and  sustained  a 
test-strain  of  26,443  pounds  before  use.  This  chain  weighs  about  7.6  jDounds  per  run- 
ning foot. 

Lagrend  assumes  the  friction  equal  to  one-half  the  w^eight  of  the  chain;  about  one- 
seventh  must  be  deducted  for  loss  of  weight  in  water.  The  friction  would  then  be 
more  than  3:1  pounds  per  running  foot,  aggregating  16,926  pounds  per  mile.  The  dis- 
tance between  fleets  would  be  2 miles,  and,  therefore,  the  tension  would  become 
zero  before  half  this  distance  were  reached,  as  we  have  found  the  tension  for  each  fleet 
to  be  12,220  pounds. 

Labrousse  mentions  an  instance  in  which,  if  we  suppose  a force  of  traction  of  2.2 
pounds  necessary  on  an  open  canal  for  each  ton  with  a velocity  of  3.28  feet  per  second, 
the  friction  must  have  been  0.58  of  the  weight  of  the  chain  on  the  bottom.  Or,  sup- 
posing this  force  of  traction  but  1.1  pounds,  the  friction  would  be  0.29  of  this  weight. 
Under  this  latter  supposition  the  resistance  would  aggregate  20,365  pounds  in  the  dis- 
tance between  2 fleets,  and  the  tension  would  become  zero  in  about  6,332  feet  ahead  of 
each  tow-boat.  It  is,  then,  more  than  probable  that  the  tension  necessary  on  the  chain 
will  at  no  time  exceed  the  tension  necessary  for  one  fleet,  which  we  have  seen  is  less 
than  50  per  cent,  of  the  test-strain  of  the  chain  in  use  on  the  Seine. 

The  strength  of  the  chain  is  then  an  assured  matter,  assuming  the  net  velocity  of 
movement  at  one  mile  per  hour  with  8 boats  iu  tow.  Assuming  four  lockages  per 
hour  as  the  maximum  trade  to  be  provided  for  by  turn-outs,  we  will  now  compare  the 
2-honr  interval  with  others,  viz,  4,  3, 1^,  and  1 hour  intervals,  supposing  the  tow-boats 
in  each  case  to  work  to  44.1  horse-power,  (effective.)  Table  V shows  this  comparison. 


* Lagrene. 


TAliLE 


702 


REPORT  OF  THE  CHIEF  OF  ENGINEERS, 


•inaniaSnejjB 

^so(Ib91[o  J3AO  :jsoo  jo  Bsaoxg; 

$1,  023,  034  32 

438,  452  28 

97,421  84 

69,  752  34 

•uopo9s-{onmi; 
AjBuipjo  JteAO  i^soo  JO  ssaoxg; 

Cf  CO  ^ 

Cl  CO  a ^ 

T-HOC5Cil^ 

1-H  o c* 

iTi  a Oi  Ci  ^ 

rr  a:  GO  — < ^ 

00  c:  lo  CO  o 
^ 00  O lO 

Ci 

•J99J  TIT  ‘S9 

-SS909J  JO  qjSao’t  ojBSojgSy 

13464 

10296 

8448 

8298 

7920 

'oraij  ono  jb  X9nnnj 
uiqjTAV  s’j9iaB9js  JO  jaqran^ 

C5  o CO 

T-l  r-* 

(•{9A9{  joddn)  ‘[onanj 
mqjTAi  sjno-aanj  jo  jgqtunj^ 

CO  O OC  c:  (M 

•J9J 

-n99  OJ  J9JU9D  TnOJJ  ‘J99J  TIT 
‘fe-9SS999A  aaoAvioq  siBAjaj'ni 

O O ic  Tf 
^ ^ CO  ^ 

OO  (N  -rr  tt 

CO  cc  ir:  rr  CO 

•Agnnd  S9ab9^  qi  sb 
‘spuTTod  u[  ‘aiBqo  jo  uoisaojr 

— • O'.  00  r-*  lo 

CO  — CC  O crs 

CO  O CO  -H 

irf  ct  ^ o' 

•qn9.i.Tuo  9rao9J9AO  oq  Aans 
-89090  aiioq  .i9d  9[iai  paiqq 
-900  SoTsoddos  ‘AqTooqoA 

cc  O O CO 

t-  cr-  o o CO 

'TP  X'  O C't  o 
^ ^ C't 

•jnoq  jod  ‘89X110 

OT  ‘S9iqtOO[9A  pO'j’udTOOQ 

l'- 

^ CO  CO  X 

^ Cl  CO  ir:  i.o 

00  -Xj  CO  LO  O’? 

O T-'  CO  o 

•qno 

-o.inq  JO  qq“o9x  oiBqqo  oq 
ooBds  09.TJ  joj  qqa9q-9oo  ppY 

cc  O CJ  o 

TJ*  — lO  On*  CO 

C*  t-  O O CO 
— .-1 

•qgaj  ord  ^diTOOo 
oq  jBoq-JAoq  pn«  jBoq  qoB9 
SoTSodaus  ‘qggp  jo  iiq^fogp; 

o o o o o 

CO  cc  •'T  O 

O LO  C;  X CO 

Cn*  T-i 

•sq99p  OT  ejBoq  jo  jgqoinx 

i ^ S'*  00  'o 

j 

i 


cS 

a 

s-  ® o 

p fc-  r ® ® 
? c a 
P^HE^CO 


{ 


APPENDIX  V. 


703 


It  is  thus  seen  that  for  this  power  of  tow-hoat,  economy  of  construction  is  on  the 
side  of  small  fleets  or  short  intervals.  The  3 and  4 hour  intervals  are  rejected.  We 
can  provide  for  the  assumed  trade  with  this  expenditure  of  power  by  either  of  the 
three  latter  intervals,  and  with  little  difference  of  cost;  for  the  2 hour  interval  will 
require  4 less  steamers,  and  the  14-hour  interval  3 less  steamers  than  the  one-honr 
interval.  The  original  cost  of  these  steamers,  with  wages  of  crews,  running  expenses, 
and  repairs,  will  go  far  to  remove  the  inequality.  It  may  be  interesting  to  note  the 
phase  the  question  takes  by  assuming  the  same  tension  of  chains  for  the  three  latter 
intervals;  the  tension  assumed  is  that  for  the  2-hour  interval,  12.33::!  pounds: 


InterA’als  of  departure. 

Computed  velocities, 
miles  per  hour. 

Net  velocities,  miles 

per  hour. 

Etfective  horse-power 

necessary. 

Intervals  between  re- 

cesses from  center 
to  center,  in  feet. 

Number  of  recesses 

within  tunnel. 

Aggregate  length  of 

recesses. 

Excess  of  cost  over 

ordinary  tunnel-sec- 

tion. 

Two 

1.  3333 

1.000 

44.4 

5280 

8 

8448 

$1,  558,  909  44 

One  and  a half 

1.5114 

1. 1782 

40.6 

4666 

9 

82'l8 

1,  531,  229  94 

One 

1. 7883 

1.  4550 

58.7 

3832 

11 

7260 

1,  339,  087  80 

Under  this  supposition,  the  2-honr  and  1^-hour  intervals  remain  the  same  in  regard 
to  cost.  The  cost  in  the  1-hour  interval  is  reduced  $122,389.80,  the  number  of  steamers 
necessary  is  reduced  by  1,  but  the  power  of  each  tow-boat  is  increased  14.1)  horse-power. 
If  we  suppose  the  friction  one-half  the  weight  of  the  chain  on  the  bottom,  it  would 
amount  in  the  distance  between  fleets  to  13,123  pounds  with  the  chain  in  use  on  the 
Seine,  being  but  765  pounds  more  than  the  tension  assumed.  Deducting  the  amount 
of  chain  raised  from  the  bottom  by  the  tow-boat,  these  two  forces  would  be  about  the 
same.  But  if  the  friction  should  be  less  than  one-half  the  weight,  the  surplus  tension 
would  be  transmitted  forward,  and  the  accumulation  from  the  different  fleets  might  be 
more  than  a proper  chain  should  be  subject  to.  High  velocities  with  short  intervals 
should  on  this  account  be  avoided.  Low  velocities  with  short  intervals  effect  no  sav- 
ing in  cost,  while  rendering  ventilation  more  difficult  because  of  the  greater  number 
of  steamers  required. 

All  things  considered,  the  1^-honr  interval  with  the  lower  power  is  recommended  as 
the  arrangement  to  be  adopted  in  the  method  by  fleets  and  passing-places.  It  requires 
1 more  steamer  than  the  2-hour  interval,  but  a higher  velocity  can  be  more  safely  and 
easily  obtained  should  it  become  necessary  from  any  cause;  and  the  saving  of  time 
will  amount  to  a good  deal  in  a yeaPs  trade,  sufficient  to  provide  for  the  greater  diffi- 
culty of  ventilation,  should  a difficulty  of  this  kind  arise. 

By  spacing  the  turn-outs  at  distances  of  4,435  feet,  as  required  by  Table  V,  beginning 
at  the  eastern  portal,  the  ninth  turn-out  will  be  about  1,700  feet  inside  the  west  portal, 
the  tenth  will  be  between  the  first  and*  second  crossings  of  Howard’s  Creek,  and  the 
eleventh  will  be  within  the  short  tunnel.  The  proper  place  for  this  last  turn-out,  being 
the  first  approaching  from  the  west,  is  below  the  short  tunnel,  where  the  boats  will 
naturally  collect  and  form  tows.  If  this  turn-ont  be  placed  here,  and  eleven  turn-outs 
be  used,  one  of  two  alternatives  must  be  adopted:  either  the  turn-outs  must  be  placed 
farther  apart  than  4,435  feet  throughout  the  line,  or  one  turn-out  must  be  located  be- 
tween the  main  and  short  tunnels,  and  the  open  cut  be  made  sufficiently  wide  to  de- 
crease the  resistance,  so  that  sufficient  speed  may  be  obtained  here  to  make  up  for  the 
greater  distance  between  turn-outs.  This  first  is  not  advisable.  The  second  is  more 
expensive  than  the  excavation  of  an  additional  turn-out  in  the  open  cut.  Accordingly 
the  first  turn-out  from  the  west,  which  is  bat  a harbor  for  the  formation  of  fleets,  is 
placed  below  the  short  tunnel ; the  third  is  immediately  outside  the  west  portal  of  the 
main  tunnel.  Nine  turn-outs  will  be  necessary  within  the  long  tunnel.  There  is  suffi- 
cient available  space  in  a straight  line  outside  the  east  portal  for  the  formation  of  a 
fleet  of  six  boats,  still  it  is  desirable  that  it  should  not  be  necessary  for  the  fleet  just 
formed  to  enter  immediately  on  the  exit  of  the  eastward  boats.  It  is  well  to  have  a 
margin  of  time  to  remove  the  eastward  boats  out  of  the  way;  to  attach  the  westward 
tow-boat  to  the  chain,  and  to  assure  a proper  condition  of  its  fires  before  entering.  To 
provide  this  margin  of  time,the  first  turn-out  from  the  east  portal  should  be  at  a less 
ditance  from  the  portal  than  the  distance  between  turn-outs.  By  spacing  the  turn-outs 
at  distances  of  4,350  feet  from  center,  to  center,  which  is  85  feet  less  than  required  by 
Table  V,  beginning  at  the  turn-out  just  outside  the  west  portal,  the  conditions  seem  to 
be  fulfilled  in  a reasonable  manner. 

The  second  turn-out  in  Howard’s  Creek  Valley  is  located  above  the  aqueduct  for  pass- 


704 


EEPORT  OF  THE  CHIEF  OF  ENGINEERS. 


ino’  the  creek  over  tlie  cut  and  on  the  side  opposite  the'creek.  The  creek  is  to  be  turned 
iuto  the  sloughs  about  opposite  the  portal,  and  where  necessary  the  earth  excavated 
from  the  tunnel-approach  will  be  formed  into  a dike  to  prevent  floods  from  flowing 
into  the  cut.  The  cut  is  to  be  arched  over  for  a distance  of  1,200  feet  above  the  short 
tunnel,  to  pass  Howard’s  Creek  and  its  floods.  The  dike  will  terminate  at  the  upper 
extremity  of  this  arching.  The  connection  of  the  creek  and  canal  below  the  short 
tunnel  is  to  be  made  as  follows:  The  creek-bed  will  be  excavated  for  600  feet  up- 
stream to  a width  of  80  feet,  the  lower  half  to  the  level  of  canal-bottom,  the  upper  half 
to  the  level  of  the  comb  of  the  dam  below,  viz,  1,721.  Across  the  lower  end  of  the 
upper  half  wall  be  a dam  5 feet  high,  wdiich  may  be  natural  if  the  rock  be  met  with 
and  will  permit  it.  This  dam  will  have  a gate,  which  may  be  opened  at  low  water, 
permitting  the  artificial  pool  above  to  be  drained  off,  when  the  sand  and  gravel  brought 
down  by  the  creek  and  there  deposited  may  be  removed. 

A supporting-wall  for  the  movable  materials  for  the  creek-bed  above  will  probably 
be  necessary  to  keep  them  out  of  the  catch-gravel  pool. 

The  Howard’s  Creek  dam  is  located  below  Caldwell  Station,  where  the  valley  widens 
out  as  it  approaches  the  Greenbrier.  This  location,  though  requiring  a dam  about  40 
feet  in  height,  seems  to  be  the  best.  I at  first  thought  of  adopting  a location  near 
station  67  71.2,  which  would  require  a dam  about  15  feet  high.  But  this  would  ren- 

der necessary  the  constructing  of  more  than  1,200  feet  of  feeder  over  very  bad  ground. 

In  leaving  this  dam  one  of  two  methods  might  be  adopted  : 

1st.  A guard-lock  at  the  dam  on  the  left  of  the  valley  ; then  a cut  not  less  than  30 
feet  deep  for  a quarter  of  a mile,  and  an  aqueduct  over  Howard’s  Creek. 

2d.  Lock  down  from  dam  on  the  left  and  enter,  near  the  mill,  the  pool  of  a dam 
located  at  the  adopted  site. 

Either  of  these,  with  the  extra  feeder-canal,  would  undoubtedly  be  more  expensive 
than  that  recommended.  A flight  of  two  locks  is  necessary  at  the  dam. 

The  canal  joins  the  Greenbrier  division  in  the  pool  of  a dam,  description  of  which 
will  be  givt  u in  the  report  of  that  division.  The  lock  at  the  Greenbrier  is  14  feet  lift. 

There  will  be  required  east  of  the  summit  the  following  amount  of  water: 

Cubic  feet  per 
minute. 


Evaporation  and  filtration,  sixteen  miles,  200  cubic  feet  per  mile  per  minute..  3,  200 
Lockage,  (supposing  six  lockages  per  hour  and  one  lock-full  toeach,)=:[14 

X 24  X 120]  X 120  equal  241,920  cubic  feet  per  hour =4,  032 

Waste  at  structures = 500 

Leakage  at  gates =2, 

Total 9,732 


IMcNeil  found  the  minimum  flow  of  Dunlap’s  Creek  to  be  9.43  cubic  feet  per  second, 
= 565.8  cubic  feet  per  minute.  The  tunnel  at  the  time  of  minimum  flow^  would  be 
required  to  deliver  973  ,*  — 565.8  = 9153.2  cubic  feet  per  minute.  The  area  of  its  water- 
W'ay  is  338.25  square  feet,  and  the  velocity,  therefore,  sliould  be  27.1  feet  per  minute, 
say  i mile  per  hour,  (=29^  feet  per  minute,  delivering  9,709  cubic  feet  per  minute.) 

Tlie  distance  from  Howard’s  Creek  dam  to  Inrush  Creek  is  somewhat  short  of  60,000 
feet.  The  fall  necessary  in  this  distance  for  a velocity  of  30  feet  per  minute  is  ^ of  a 
loot,  nearly.  To  provide  lor  this  fall,  and  also  to  correct  in  a degree  any  irregularity 
of  feeding,  the  comb  of  the  dam  in  Howard’s  Creek  is  established  8 feet  above  canal- 
bottom — i.  e.,  at  reference,  (1,721.)  The  comb  of  the  dam  in  Brush  Creek  Valley  is  to  be 
one  foot  higher  than  this,  to  prevent  excessive  w^aste  of  water  over  it  b}^  the  waves 
formed  by  the  eastward  fleets.  The  top  of  the  lift- wall  of  the  first  lock  is  on  a level 
with  the  bottom  of  the  tunnel,  so  that  navigation  may  not  cease  as  long  as  there  be 
sufficient  wat  r therein  to  float  a brat.  This  will  still  further  tend  to  correct  irregu- 
larities of  feeding. 

The  conformation  of  Brush  Creek  Valley  requires  that  the  locks  for  entering  and 
leaving  the  basin  should  be  on  the  hill-side  to  the  right  of  the  dam,  while  the  canal 
should  be  on  the  left  of  the  creek,  below  station  77-f-50.  Accordingly,  a dam  is 
located  near  station  77,  from  the  pool  of  w^hich  the  boats  leave  by  a flight  of  three 
locks.  To  prevent  waste  of  water,  the  comb  of  this  dam  is  8 feet  above  canal-bottom. 
The  flights  of  locks  at  both  dams  are  double.  The  lift  of  all  locks  in  Brush  Creak  Val- 
ley is  8 feet.  The  levels  are  necessaiily  short,  and  the  ov'erfalls  should  be  so  arranged 
as  to  retain  rather  more  than  the  necessary  depth  of  7 feet.  Through  a good  pjirt  of 
this  distance,  a dike  wall  be  necessary  to  restrain  the  floods  of  Brush  Creek.  This  dike, 
also  serving  the  purpose  of  embankment  to  the  canal,  should  be  several  leet  above  the 
creek-bed.  For  this  reason,  the  excavation  in  this  valley  is  generally  of  little  depth, 
wTiich  permits  the  levels  to  oe  wider  than  the  ordinary  canal,  making  up  somew^hat 
for  their  little  length. 

The  connection  with  Lorraine’s  location  is  made  in  a pool  in  Dunlap’s  Creek.  I 


APPENDIX  V. 


705 


would  recommend  the  pool  of  this  dam,  as  well  as  the  others  iu  Duulap’s  Creek,  to  be 
8 feet  above  canal-bottom,  to  prevent  waste  of  water  aud  to  correct  irregularities 
of  feeding.  A riprap  protection  is  estimated  for  on  the  upper  part  of  the  dike,  where 
the  channel-way  of  the  creek  is  somewhat  restricted  in  width.  Below  the  last  lock,  a 
loose-stone  breakwater  is  provided  on  the  up-stream  side,  to  protect  the  boats  at  the 
tail  of  the  lock  from  the  current  iu  Dunlap’s  Creek  during  high  water. 

The  feeding  arrangements  are  next  to  be  considered.  The  maximum  lift  of  lock  east 
of  the  summit  is  14  feet,  which  is  also  the  lift  of  the  lock  connecting  the  summit  with 
the  Greenbrier  division.  Taking  this  lift  as  the  unit  of  lockage,  supposing  6 lockages 
per  hour,  each  requiring  two  locks  full  of  water,  there  will  be  required  each  hour  for 
lockage,  (2  X 6)  (14  X 24  X 120)  = 483,820  cubic  feet,  equal.  8,  0(54  cub.  ft.  per  min. 

Evaporation  and  filtration,  28  miles,  at  200  cubic  feet  per  mile,  5,600  cub.  ft.  per  min. 

For  leakage  at  lock-gates 4,000  cub.  ft.  per  min. 

Waste  at  structures 1,000  cub.  ft.  per  min. 


’Total 18,664  cub.  ft.  per  min. 

Say,  320  cubic  feet  per  second  as  the  quantity  to  be  delivered  at  the  summit  by  the 
feeder,  if  we  neglect  the  flow  of  Howard’s  and  Dunlap’s  Creeks. 

Mr.  Hutton’s  proposed  location  for  feeder-dam  for  the  (1,700)  level  is  near  the  mill- 
dam  above  dam  A,  (Sheet  No.  4,  summit  division.)  From  there  the  feeder-canal  was 
proposed  to  keep  to  the  hill-side  on  the  left  of  the  valley,  aud  to  pass  round  the  point 
near  the  Greenbrier  bridge,  uniting  with  the  canal  below  station  106  76  of  the  How- 

ard’s Creek  line.  (Survey  of  1874.) 

Mr.  Latrobe  suggested  the  adoption  of  a feeder-tunnel  through  the  point  about 
opposite  station  115  + 05  of  Howard’s  Creek  line.  An  examination  with  this  view  of 
saving  feeder-canal  by  tunneling  the  point,  led  to  the  discovery  of  the  cut-off  by  the 
ravine  from  the  Greenbrier,  between  dams  Nos.  1 and  B.  A tunuel  here  1,340  feet  in 
length  will  save  at  least  7,600  feet  of  feeder  on  very  bad  ground,  besides  7.6  feet  in 
height  of  feeder-clam. 

The  location  for  a feeder-dam  at  the  bluff,  near  dam  B,is  not  available  for  the  1,713 
summit  at  least.  For  this  level  the  dam  would  be  about  50  feet  in  height,  with  a 
guard-bank  more  than  1,500  feet  in  length,  the  river-end  of  which  would  be  about  60 
feet  high.  The  pool  would  be  of  no  use  as  a reservoir,  for,  of  course,  the  water  could 
not  be  drawn  off  below  the  level  it  is  intended  to  supply.  The  location  near  station 
108  is  recommended.  No  guard-bank  will  be  required  and  no  valuable  ground  will  be 
overflowed. 

The  normal  level  of  Die  water-surface  on  the  summit  is  1,720  feet.  This  level  is  taken 
as  the  bottom  of  the  feeder,  where  it  discharges  into  the  Howard’s  Creek  pool,  and 
the  slope  of  the  bottom  is  assumed  at  one  foot  in  one  thousand  feet. 

A rectangular  section  (18  X 5 = 90  square  feet)  is  adopted  as  the  standard.  This 
with  a slope  of  i^fo-cr  wili  give  a velocity  a little  in  excess  of  4 feet  per  second,  deliv- 
ering 360  cubic  feet  in  that  time.  The  sections  of  the  feeder-tunnel  at  the  Greenbrier 
end  are  shown  by  the  figure  annexed. 


The  arch  is  horizontal  and  the  bottom  falls  for  the  necessary  slope.  A dam  is  pro- 
posed across  the  ravine  at  the  Greenbrier  end  of  this  tunnel,  which  will  provide  a 
waste-weir  at  this  point.  The  bottom  of  the  tunnel  at  this  end  will  be  1,721.5  above 
tide.  Five  feet  of  water  will  make  the  surface-elevation  1,726.5.  The  top  of  the 
waste-weir  is  established  at  1,727,  aud  the  feeder-bottom  at  station  24  is  taken  1,722. 

The  dam  should  have  a gate  so  arranged  that  the  pool  may  be  drained,  and  the  sedi- 
ment brought  down  by  the  feeder  washed  into  the  river. 

The  excavation  to  the  ravine  above  dam  A will  be  mostly  in  red  shale.  The  cross- 
section  at  station  24  may  be  taken  as  the  type  of  this  portion.  It  is  recommended 
that  a wall  be  built  on  the  river-side  7 feet  in  height  (see  cross-section  station  21) 
and  51^  feet  in  width,  resting  on  a foundation  of  concrete  2 feet  thick,  and  that  the  exca- 

45  E 


706  . 


REPORT  OF  THE  CHIEF  OF  ENGINEERS. 


vation  be  made  18  feet  in  width  on  the  bottom.  The  bine  line  from  waste- weir  to  feeder- 
dam  (Sheet  No.  4,  summit  division)  is  the  outer  edge  of  feeder-bottom.  Eleven  culverts 
will  be  required  on  the  feeder-line. 

The  wall  on  the  river-side  of  the  feeder  ends  at  station  72  50.  Above  this  for  some 

distance  embankment  is  considered  preferable  in  view  of  expense.  To  prevent  excess- 
ive waste  of  water  from  the  feeder  the  following  is  recommended  : The  excavation 
to  be  made  1 foot  below  feeder-bottom,  then  about  9 inches  of  puddle-clay  carefully 
laid  on  this,  about  2^  inches  of  stone,  broken  small,  to  be  laid  and  lightly  rolled,  then 
a layer  of  hydraulic  mortar  to  be  thrown  on  and  rammed  carefully,  so  as  not  to  disturb 
the  broken  stone.  I should  fear  that  puddling  alone  would  be  washed  away  by  the  cur- 
rent. The  inner  slope  and  outer  slope  (when  embanked)  to  be  paved  to  7 feet  above 
bottom. 

Paving  to  be  6 inches  thick,  laid  in  mortar. 

ANALYSIS  OF  COST  PER  RUNNING  FOOT. 


One-sixth  yard  broken  stone,  at$l |;0. 17 

One-half  yard  puddling 0.25 

One-quarter  barrel  cement 0.  40 

Two  cubic  feet  sand 0.  05 

Laying  broken  stone 0.  03 

Laying  and  mixing  mortar 0. 10 

Total  per  running  foot 1.  00 

Paving  per  running  foot 1.50 


The  length  of  canal  to  be  filled  from  the  summit  feeder  or  feeders  is,  in  round  num- 
bers, 150,000  feet.  In  this  length  are  eight  pools  in  Dunlap’s  Creek,  two  in  Brush  Creek, 
and  one  in  Howard’s  Creek,  and  the  canal  in  Brush  Creek  has  a section  larger  than  the 
standard  adopted.  The  tunnel  water-way  has  less  sectional  area  than  the  canal  sec- 
tion. Supposing  the  average  throughout  the  line  to  be  the  canal  section  = 441  square 
feet,  there  will  be  required  to  fill  the  summit  division  66,150,000  cubic  feet. 

If  we  suppose  while  filling  the  canal  the  losses  by  leakage  at  gates,  evaporation,  and 
filtration  to  equal  the  amount  supposed  when  estimating  for  permanent  expense,  160 
cubic  feet  per  second  would  be  required  to  supply  these  losses.  The  feeder  will  deliver 
360  cubic  feet  per  second.  If  we  neglect  the  flow  of  Howard’s  and  Dunlap’s  Creeks, 
200  cubic  feet  per  second  of  the  feeder-delivery  will  be  the  available  net  amount  for 
filling  the  trunk  of  the  canal.  The  time  required  would  be  somewhat  less  than  four 
days.  This  would  not  seem  too  long,  as  some  time  is  required  to  permit  the  boats  to 
approach  from  below. 

If  artificial  ventilation  should  at  any  time  be  necessary,  the  simplest  method 
would  be  to  utilize  the  summit-supply  of  water  to  provide  the  power.  For  the  upper 
level,  the  Greenbrier  feeder  is  not  available  for  this  purpose,  except  at  the  great  expense 
necessary  to  build  a longer  feeder.  This  feeder  would  be  available  for  the  lower  level 
through  a fall  of  12  to  13  feet,  but  the  power  would  be  about  two  miles  from  the  por- 
tal, and  this  extra  length  of  pipes  would  be  necessary.* 

Lorraine  made  surveys  for  and  located  reservoirs  on  Howard’s  and  Jerrico  Creeks, 
and  on  Tuckahoe  Creek,  and  presents  the  following  tablet  of  the  contents  of  each: 


Reservoir. 

Area  in  acres. 

Contents  in  cu- 
bic yards. 

Drainage  area 
in  sq.  miles. 

Cubic  yards  of 
rain-fall,  37 
inches. 

40  per  cent,  for 
drainage. 

Howard’s  and  Jerrico  

248 

159 

9,  276,410 

7,  693,  464 

6,  750 
9,  522 

33,  573,  870 
47,  361,  539 

13  429,  548 
18,  944,616 

Tuckahoe 

The  Howard’s  and  Jerrico  reservoir  contains  250,463,070  cubic  feet,  which  would  sup- 
ply 581  cubic  feet  per  minute  = 36,512  foot-pounds  per  foot  of  fall.  We  can  get  60 
feet  of  fall  at  the  west  portal,  which  from  this  reservoir  would  give  2,190,720  foot- 
pounds per  minute ; 75  per  cent,  of  this  would  be  1,643,640  foot-pounds  per  minute, 
nearly  50  horse-power. 

The  Tuckahoe  reservoir  contains  207,723,528  cubic  feet,  which  would  supply  480  cubic 

* This  availability  of  the  Greenbrier  feeder  is  an  advantage  possessed  by  the  lower 
level  not  mentioned  heretofore. 

tl  am  indebted  to  Mr.  J.  M.  Harris,  superintendent  James  River  and  Kanawha  Com- 
pany, for  this  table. 


APPENDIX  V. 


707 


feet  per  minute  for  300  days  = 30,000  foot-pounds  per  minute  for  each  foot  of  fall.  The 
site  of  this  reservoir  is  now  cut  up  by  railroad,  but  more  than  one-half  the  above  con- 
tents could  probably  be  counted  upon — 15,000  pounds  per  minute  through  a fall  of  60 
feet  would  give  900,000  foot-pounds  per  minute,  75  per  cent,  of  which  would  be  20^ 
horse-power  nearly.  It  would  not  always  be  necessary  to  draw  from  the  coutents  of 
these  reservoirs,  as  on  many  days  the  flow  of  Howard’s  Creek  would  supply  all  the 
power  necessary.  Some  of  the  water  from  these  reservoirs  would  be  lost  by  evapora- 
tion, &c.,  before  arriving  at  the  portal.  But  the  natural  drainage  pertaining  to  them 
will  su])ply  much  more  than  double  the  quantity  supposed  to  be  used. 

It  will  be  observed  that  while  arranging  the  tunnel  for  four  lockages  each  way  per 
hour,  the  estimate  for  the  water-supply  has  been  made  on  a basis  of  three  lockages 
each  way  per  hour.  If  there  be  but  three  lockages  on  an  average,  it  would  probably 
occur  frequently,  as  the  fleets  must  start  promptly  on  time,  that  a boat  slightly  behind 
time  for  one  fl^et  would  with  rapid  lockages  in  the  next  interval  form  a fleet  of  six 
boats,  and  those  fleets  which  move  the  slowest  regulate  the  rate  of  progress  through 
the  tunnel.  Then,  as  now  arranged,  the  maximum  lift  of  lock  is  14  feet.  Six  lock- 
fuls would  most  probably  be  sufficient  for  this  lift,  as  boats  cannot  be  so  readily  passed 
as  through  locks  of  less  lift,  and  there  must  be  some  alternate  passages. 

If  eight  lockfnls  be  really  necessary,  the  amount  of  water  to  supply  the  summit 
division,  the  losses  being  as  supposed,  will  be  356  cubic  feet  per  second,  which  is  less 
than  the  delivery  of  the  feeder.  We  have,  besides,  the  flow  of  Howard’s  and  Dunlap’s 
Creeks. 

If  required,  the  depth  of  water  in  the  feeder  may  be  made  more  than  5 feet,  thus 
increasing  the  delivery.  The  velocity  in  the  tunnel  would  be  increased.  If  eight 
lockfuls  be  necessary,  the  amount  required  east  of  the  summit  would  be  11,076  cubic 
feet  per  minute.  Deducting  the  minimum  flow  of  Dunlap’s  Creek,  the  remainder, 
10,511  cubic  feet  per  minute,  would  be  the  amount  to  be  delivered  by  the  tunnel.  The 
velocity  would  be  31.1  feet  per  minute,  (=  1,866  feet  per  hour,  say  miles  = 1,920 
feet.)  The  necessary  horse-power  for  tow-bo;»t  won.d  be  44.72  horse-power,  an  increase 
of  but  0.62  horse  power  over  the  amount  estimated  for. 

I would  recommend  that  the  lifts  of  the  locks  in  Dunlap’s  Creek  Valley  be  changed 
to  decrease  the  maximum  lift.  If  8 feet  should  be  adopted  throughout  the  line,  the 
quantity  of  water  required  east  of  the  sutnmit,  supposing  eight  lockfuls  to  be  neces- 
sary per  hour,  would  be  decreased  2,304  culnc  feet  per  minute.  The  amount  to  be  de- 
livered by  the  tunnel  would  b-j  8,207  cubic  feet  per  minute,  and  the  power  necessary 
for  the  tow-boat  would  be  37^  horse. 

If  a reservoir  were  constructed  on  Dunlap’s  Creek  of  sufficient  capacity  with  the 
flow  of  the  creek  to  supply  the  losses  from  evaporation  and  filtration  below  the  mouth 
of  Brush  Creek,  the  amount  to  be  delivered  by  the  tunnel  would  be  still  further 
reduced  by  2,822  cubic  feet  per  minute,  and  the  power  necessary  for  the  tow-boat 
would  be  only  31|^  horse.  This  reduction  of  power  would  materially  diminish  the  con- 
sumption of  fuel  in  the  tunnel,  and  to  that  extent  relieve  the  ventilation,  besides  de- 
ci easing  the  running  expenses  and  first  cost. 

The  reservoir  necessary  would  not  be  large.  McNeil  found  the  average  flow  of  Dun- 
lap’s Creek,  from  August  7 to  September  27,  1826,  to  be  19  cubic  feet  per  second;  and 
from  the  17 th  of  May  to  June  16,  1827,  the  average  was  94.41  cubic  feet  per  second. 
The  amount  required  would  bo  less  than  50  cubic  feet  per  second.  This  is  a matter  to 
which  attention  should  be  directed  while  the  tunnel  is  being  excavated.  Lorraine 
made  a survey  for  a reservoir  on  Cove  Creek,  and  it  is  one  of  those  shown  on  his  map 
of  the  summit,  but  I cannot  learn  that  he  made  an  estimate  of  cost  or  left  any  record 
of  its  capacity  or  area  of  drainage.  During  the  spring,  fall,  and  winter  seasons  there 
is  no  doubt  that  Dunlap’s  Creek  will  provide  the  necessary  supply.  These  being  the 
times  of  greatest  trade,  it  may  be  that  no  reservoir  will  be  required,  and  that  the  power 
necessary,  measured  on  the  chain,  will  be  at  all  times  less  than  40  horse.  If  the  com- 
merce of  the  line  should  decrease  during  slack  trade  to  six  lockages  per  hour,  the  inter- 
vals between  fleets  can  be  increased  to  two  hours,  when  the  eflective  power  necessary 
will  be  27.3  horse. 

In  closing  this  report  I would  make  some  remarks  on  the  apparently  great  difificul- 
ties  attaching  to  the  construction  of  the  summit  tunnel. 

A tunnel  of  the  length  proposed  (nearly  eight  miles)  is  no  new  or  experimental  mat- 
ter at  all.  The  Mount  Cenis  tunnel  is  nearly  as  long  as  this,  while  the  Saint  Gothard 
tunnel  through  the  Alps,  now  being  excavated,  will  be  about  8,000  feet  longer.  At 
neither  of  these  tunnels  could  shafts  be  found  to  expedite  the  construction,  while  the 
Alleghany  tunnel  will  have  ten  or  twelve  of  moderate  depth,  thus  dividing  the  long 
tunnel  practically  into  a number  of  shorter  ones.  The  deepest  shaft  is  400  feet  less 
depth  than  the  central  shaft  of  the  Hoosac  tunnel. 

The  rates  of  progress  at  shafts  and  at  headings  are  assumed  at  30  feet  per  month  for 
the  former  and  100  feet  per  month  for  the  latter.  The  progress  at  the  central  shaft  of 
the  Hoosac  tunnel,  as  mentioned,  was  30.1  feet  per  month,  while  the  excavation  was 
carried  on  in  the  lower  half  of  a shaft  1,028  feet  deep,  at  which  insufficient  preparations 
had  been  made  for  the  proper  construction  of  the  tunnel. 


708 


REPORT  OF  THE  CHIEF  OF  ENGINEERS. 


Mr.  li.  D.  Whitcomb  writes  me  as  follows  : “ The  370-foot  shaft  at  Great  Bend  tunnel 
is  the  best  guide  I have  to  offer  for  progress  in  a deep  shaft.  It  was  reinoved  by  con- 
tract to  a depth  of  70  feet.  The  remaining  300  feet  was  sunk  in  six  months.  Some 
of  the  rock  was  a very  hard  sandstone.  I think  the  best  progress  made  was  about  70 
feet  in  one  month.” 

I have  not  the  slightest  doubt  the  Alleghany  shafts  could  be  sunk  at  the  average 
rate  of  50  feet  per  month  easily.  Mr.  Whitcomb  informs  mo  that  the  greatest  progress 
he  remembers  (in  heading)  at  Great  Bend  was  180  feet  per  month.  “In  very  hard 
sandstone  in  that  tunnel  we  made  80  feet.  A fair  average  would  be  125  feet.  In  the 
Lewis  tunnel,  I suppose  65  feet  would  be  a fair  average  without  machinery,  i.  e.,  with- 
out machine-drills.”  Subsequently  he  wrote:  “Mr.  Talcott  says  he  thinks  I over- 
estimated the  average  progress  at  headings,  i e.,  counting  all  delays.  He  says  : ‘An 
average  would  be  100  feet  per  month.  But  I will  add  that  the  contractor  was  inexx^e- 
rienced,  and  I feel  sure  that  another  such  tuunel  would  be  driven  faster.’  ” 

The  Great  Bend  tunnel  was,  I believe,  excavated  by  hand-drills.  The  progress  at 
the  Hoosac  tuunel  was  about  130  feet  at  x^ortal  headings,  and  would  have  been  more 
than  100  feet  from  the  deep  shaft  if  sufScient  pumping-machinery  had  been  provided. 

At  the  Mount  Cenis  tuunel  the  average  monthly  progress  at  headings,  from  1864  to 
1870,  was  as  follows: 


1864 

1865 

1866 


Feet. 

148.6 


1867 


168.3  1868 

140.1  1870 


Feet. 

206.5 

180.4 

223.5 


For  the  entire  seven  years  the  average  monthly  progress  was  180  feet  at  a heading. 

The  Saint  Gothard  tunnel  through  the  Alps  is  the  last  great  enterprise  of  the  kind 
'put  in  execution,  and  will  be  49,733  feet  in  length.  In  1874  the  average  monthly  prog- 
ress at  a heading  was  247.6  feet.  For  the  first  four  mouths  of  1875,  (tlie  last  con- 
nected account  I have  seen,)  the  average  daily  x^rogress  was  more  than  10  feet,  and,  in 
Sex^tember,  1875,  the  last  rex)ort  I have  found,  the  x)rogress  was  419  feet  at  one  heading 
and  344  feet  at  the  other. 

We  have  every  reason  to  €xx)ect  more  rax)id  x)i’ogi’ess  at  the  Alleghany  tunnel  than 
has  been  assumed. 

Attention  is  particularly  invited  to  the  profile  of  the  recommended  line.  The  deep- 
est shaft  is  about  600  feet.  If  this  be  used,  there  is  no  doubt  whatever  that  the  western 
heading  of  Kate’s  Mountain  will  be  open  to  the  x>ortal  in  two  years.  Twenty-five 
and  three-fourths  mouths  is  the  estimated  time,  assuming  x)rogress  at  shafts  at  30  feet 
Xier  month  and  100  feet  at  headings. 

If  shaft  7 his  be  used,  Kate’s  Mountain  heading  (western)  will  be  open  to  the  x^ortal 
in  less  than  20  mouths. 

The  eastern  heading  of  Lewis  Mountain  will  be  open  to  the  portal  in  less  than  11 
months. 

At  the  end  of  the  second  year  the  work  will  be  in  the  following  condition:  All  shafts 
will  be  excavated  : the  longest  headings  will  be  ox^en  to  the  x>ortals;  21,554  feet  of 
tunnel  (more  than  half  the  entire  length)  will  be  excavated,  and  operations  will  be 
carried  on  at  the  portals  and  but  6 shaft-headings.  At  the  end  of  the  fourth  year,  the 
entire  tunnel  will  be  excavated  except  about  1,000  feet  at  Kate’s  Mountain,  both  head- 
ings of  which  will  be  open  to  the  portals.  The  more  the  matter  is  considered,  the  less 
do  the  difficulties  appear. 

Estimates  in  detail  of  the  line  from  Dunlap’s  Creek  to  the  Greenbrier  River,  includ- 
ing those  for  the  feeder,  accompany  this  report.  The  total  of  this  division,  inclusive 
of  contingencies,  as  shown  by  the  recapitulation,  is  $16,387,757.45. 

The  estimate  for  the  tunnel  includes  arching  throughout ; should  any  portion  require 
no,  or  but  x^artial,  arching,  the  amount  thus  saved  will  fully  cover  any  increased  cost 
of  excavation  due  to  the  harder  rock.  It  may  be  that  the  excavation  at  the  recess  will 
assume  the  x^ointed  form.  If  so,  the  cost  will  be  somewhat  increased  at  these  points, 
but  not  materially,  as  the  extra  excavation  will  come  out  as  loose  rock.  The  cost  of 
tunnel-excavation  is  taken  at  $5  per  cubic  yard.  I believe  this  to  be  a fair  price.  Shaft- 
excavation  is  taken  at  $10  per  cubic  yard.  This  is  but  one-half  the  price  assigned  this 
excavation  in  previous  estimates.  I judge  $10  to  be  sufficient,  from  the  following 
information  kindly  furnished  me  by  Mr.  Whitcomb,  viz  : 

“ The  main  shafts  (two)  of  the  Great  Bend  tunnel  were  170  and  370  feet  (about)  re- 
sxiectively.  The  contract-xirice  was  $6  x>er  cubic  yard.  The  contractor  excavated 
the  shorter  shaft,  and,  say,  90  feet  of  the  deeper;  the  company  then  completed  the 
deeper  one.  Iffie  contractor  received  an  allowance  on  the  shorter  shaft,  bringing  the  cost 
up  to  between  $11  and  $12.  1 think  the  deep  shaft  co.st  us  between  $13  and  $14  per 
cubic  yard ; size,  8’  X 18'.  We  had  to  wagon  all  machinery  40  miles  across  a rough 
country  or  send  it  via  Greenbrier  River  in  boats.  I suppose  such  a shaft  would  be  doue 
now  for  $10  x^er  cubic  yard.” 

The  greater  size  of  the  Alleghany  shafts  (10'  X 40')  will  tend  to  reduce  the  price  per 
cubic  yard. 


APPENDIX  V.  709' 

Brick  arching  is  estimated  at  $12  per  cubic  yard,  and  the  masonry  lining  below  the 
water-surface  at  $8  per  cubic  yard. 

In  the  estimate  for  dam  and  lock  masonry  the  cost  has  been  taken  at  $9  and  $10  per 
cubic  yard,  respectively,  for  the  purpose  of  keeping  a uniform  standard  with  the  New 
Eiver  estimates.  This  course  is  also  adopted  with  the  Greenbrier  division. 

As  far  as  known  of  the  summit  and  Greenbrier,  some  difficulty  may  be  encountered 
in  getting  stone  which  can  be  cut  easily  or  readily  dressed  to  shape,  and  for  that  rea- 
son masonry  may  cost  somewhat  more  than  in  the  New  Kiver  division,  where  unlim- 
ited quantities  of  fine  stone  abound. 

In  a large  enterprise  of  this  kind  the  development  of  resources  may  be  expected 
which  have  been  hitherto  undiscovered  or  unemployed. 

This  is  most  probable  with  regard  to  cement,  as  I understand  that  fine  cement-stone 
exists  at  Callahan’s,  (a  short  distance  westward  of  Covington.)  Proximity  to  the  ce- 
ment may  in  part  make  up  for  the  greater  distance  from  good  quarries. 

The  estimates  for  masonry,  embankment,  and  excavation  for  this  division,  exclusive 
of  the  great  tunnel,  were  made  by  Lieutenant  Maguire,  with  the  exception  of  some 
changes  recently  made  in  the  dams.  In  comparing  the  estimates  of  this  line  with 
others  in  the  vicinity,  it  should  be  remembered  that  these  estimates  cover  the  entire 
distance  from  the  Greenbrier  at  the  mouth  of  Howard’s  Creek  to  the  mouth  of  Brush 
Creek.  Also,  it  should  be  remembered  in  comparing  the  entire  central  water-line  with 
any  other  that  the  higher  summit  of  McNeill’s  is  still  available,  by  which  the  summit 
may  be  passed  at  an  elevation  of  1,916  feet  above  tide,  with  a tunnel  2f  miles  in  length. 
This  is,  I believe,  with  approach-cuts,  50  feet  in  depth,  and  of  moderate  length. 

All  of  which  is  respectfully  submitted. 

Thoimas  Turtle, 

Mrst  Lieut,  of  Engineers. 

Major  William  P.  Craigiiill, 

Corps  of  Engineers,  U.  S.  A. 


recapitulation  of  estimates  for  summit  division,  survey  of  1874. 


Total  estimate  of  Brush  Creek $827, 787  49 

Total  estimate  of  tunnel * 12,376,608  29 

Total  estimate  of  Howard’s  Creek 1,  251, 162  69 

Total  estimate  of  feeder-line - 444, 134  77 

Total 14,  899, 693  24 

Contingencies,  10  per  cent,  of  total 1,  489,  969  32 

Grand  total 16,389,662  56 


report  on  GREENBRIER  DIVISION,  SURVEY  OF  1874,.  BY  LIEUTENANT  THOMAS  TURTLE, 

CORPS  OF  ENGINEERS. 

Baltimore,  Md.,  July  24,  1876. 

Major  : I have  the  honor  to  submit  the  following  report  on  the  surveys  and  esti- 
mates for  the  Greenbrier  division  of  the  central  water-line  : 

After  the  completion  of  the  surveys  for  the  summit  division,  those  for  the  Greenbrier 
commenced,  Mr.  R.  H.  Talcott  being  left  in  charge  in  the  field,  and  Mr.  W.  S.  Walker 
taking  one  of  the  transits.  The  surveys  included  those  for  a slack-water  navigation 
and  for  an  independent  canal  from  the  western  approach  of  the  summit  tunnel  to  the 
west  portal  of  the  Great  Bend  tunnel  of  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Railroad.  From 
this  point  to  the  niouth  of  the  Greenbrier  River  the  surveys  were  made  by  Mr.  Hut- 
ton’s New  River  parties,  under  the  immediate  charge  of  Mr.  C.  R.  Boyd. 

From  the  combined  notes  of  these  surveys  the  maps,  four  in  number,  which  accom- 
pany this  report  have  been  made.  Sheets  Nos.  1,  2,  and  3 are  on  a scale  of  1 inch  to 
200  feet,  and  show  the  entire  valley  as  covered  by  our  surveys,  while  sheet  No.  4,  on  a 
scale  of  1 inch  to  600  feet,  shows  the  entire  Great  Bend.  In  the  autumn  of  1874,  after 
the  completion  of  the  surveys,  preliminary  estimates  for  the  slack-water  system  were 
made,  to  accompany  a report  made  at  that  time.  The  detailed  report  was  made  by  Mr. 
R.  H.  Talcott.  Since  that  time  further  study  has  modified  the  plans  so  that  a new  re- 
port will  be  necessary,  though  free  use  is  made  of  that  made  by  Mr.  Talcott.  No  re- 
port had  been  made  for  the  independeut^canal,  as  the  time  did  not  permit  the  making 
of  e.stimates.  The  slack-water  system  will  first  receive  attention. 

“ The  survey  for  the  slack- water  navigation  of  the  Greenbrier  River  was  begun  on  the 


710 


EEPORT  OF  THE  CHIEF  OP  ENGINEERS. 


22(1  of  September,  at  a point  about  two  miles  above  the  mouth  of  Howard’s  Creek,  at 
which  it  was  assumed  that  the  direct  tumiel  from  Brush  Creek  to  the  Greenbrier  River 
would  debonch,  supposino  that  tunnel  to  be  the  one  adopted.  The  transit-line  began 
at  station  52-}-  11  of  an  offset  line  from  the  direct  tunnel,  and  the  levels  were  started 
from  a bench  on  a maple  about  200  feet  to  the  left  of  that  station,  and  the  elevation 
assumed  was  1,704.24  above  mid-tide,  that  being  the  mean  of  two  lines  of  levels  run 
during  the  previous  survey  for  the  summit  level.’”^ 

In  my  report  for  the  summit  division  I recommended  the  valley  of  Howard’s  Creek 
for  the  western  approach  of  the  summit,  and  therefore  the  dams  located  above  dam 
No.  4 will  not  be  necessary  for  this  line,  and  no  estimates  have  been  made  for  them. 

In  the  arrangement  now  recommended  the  dams  have  been  made  as  long  as  can  be 
judiciously  done,  and  the  heights  of  guard-walls  and  guard-banks  have  been  made  to 
correspomi  to  the  lengths  of  the  dams  and  to  the  estimated  discharge  of  the  stream. 
For  this  latter  we  have  no  certain  data.  I am  informed  by  Mr.  Talcott  that  he  has 
personal  knowledge  of  a flood  at  Graham’s  Ferry  20  feet  above  low  water,  and  this 
flood  was  not  as  high  by  5 or  6 feet  as  the  highest  known,  according  to  the  account  of 
the  inhabitants  near  there.  A point  of  highest  water  was  found  nearly  opposite  Cald- 
well’s mill,  above  Greenbrier  bridge,  where  the  rise  was  about  12  feet.  I have  taken 
the  former  as  the  safe  gnide.  Herewith  is  a profile  of  the  Greenbrier  River  from 
dam  No.  20  (above  Graham’s  Ferry)  to  the  crest  of  Bacon’s  Falls.  It  was  supposed 
that  in  a flood  of  26  feet  the  irregularities  due  to  the  varied  slope  of  the  bottom  shall 
disappear,  and  that  the  line  drawn  from  the  crest  of  the  rapids  above  dam  21  to  the 
crest  of  that  below  Graham’s  Ferry  and  above  the  islands  shall  represent  the  slope  of 
the  river,  and  the  section  be  that  at  this  lower  point. 

I find,  by  the  Humphreys- Abbot  formula,  the  discharge  of  the  stream  will  be  65,652 
cubic  feet  per  second,  say  66,000  cubic  feet.  I think  this  is  a very  safe  estimate,  for 
the  abrupt  bends  between  Graham’s  Ferry  and  Bacon’s  Falls  and  the  islands  opposite 
Rollinsburg  mnst  greatly  impede  the  flow  of  water;  accordingly  the  guard-walls  and 
banks  are  recommended  of  such  heights  as  to  be  above  a discharge  of  this  amount  at 
the  dams  respectiv^ely.  Mr.  Hutton  informs  me  that,  in  his  arrangement  of  the  slack- 
water  system  of  the  New  River  division,  the  locks  can  be  used  for  the  passage  of  boats 
during  the  passage  of  a Greenbrier  flood.  It  is  advisable  that  the  Greenbrier  may 
always  be  navigated  when  the  New  River  can  be,  and  accordingly  the  lock- walls, 
throughout  their  extent,  are  carried  to  the  height  of  the  abutment-walls  and  guard- 
banks  in  all  cases.  The  plan  of  lock  ad^ipted  by  Mr.  Hutton  for  the  New  River  has 
been  taken  as  the  model.  The  chamber- walls  on  the  river  side  have  been  so  calculated 
as  to  permit  the  lock  to  be  emptied  for  repairs  with  a flood  of  40,000  cubic  feet  per 
second  in  the  river. 


a 


The  mode  of  calculation  is  a modification  of  the  empirical  formula  given  by  Lagrend 


Quoted  from  Mr.  Talcott’s  report  of  December  2:5,  1874. 


APPENDIX  V.  711 

for  calculating  the  thickness  of  the  chamber -wall  of  a lock,  the  inner  and  outer  faces 
of  which  shall  have  the  same  batter,  and  is  as  follows  : 

r is  equal  to  the  rise  on  the  comb  of  the  dam  with  a discharge  of  40,000  cubic  feet 
per  second  ;*  h is  the  height  from  1 foot  below  the  bottom  of  the  chamber-wall  to  the 
top  of  this  rise  ; /i'  is  the  height  of  the  top  of  the  guard- wall  to  the  top  of  the  rise,  and 
X is  the  total  batter  in  the  height  h. 

The  thickness  of  a wall  of  rectangular  section  which  will  just  retain  a column  of 
water  of  the  same  height  is  iVo/b  the  specific  gravity  of  the  wall  being  supposed 
double  that  of  water.  A thickness  of  one-half  h is  then  an  excess  of  stability.  The 
W'all  shown  in  the  figure  will  weigh  per  unit  of  length 

tt'  {ah'  all  -j-x  h), 

tt'  being  the  weight  of  a unit  of  volume.  The  moment  is 

/ I./  I 7 1 

TV  {a  h ah  -j-  xn) — — 

The  moment  of  a wall  of  rectangular  section  with  height  and  a thickness  of  |/i,  is 


Placing  these  two  moments  ennal  and  solvinsr  with  respect  to  x we  have, 

+ ^a^fih'  -f-  4a'‘^ii^  -[-  — 3a  {zli  -f-  li) 

**=  

The  base  of  the  wall  will  then  be  equal  to  {a-\-2x.)  The  width,  a,  of  the  top  of  the 
wall  has  been  taken  at  5 feet.  This  break  in  the  face  of  the  wall  will  indicate  for  all 
time  the  danger-point  for  the  rise  in  the  stream,  when  the  lock  is  empty  and  under- 
going repairs.  The  chamber-wall  on  the  laud  side  is  in  all  cases  5 feet  on  top,  with  a 
batter  on  front  and  on  back  of  5 on  1.  At  most  of  the  dams  a study  of  the  character  of 
the  excavation  will  probably  permit  a decrease  of  this  batter. 

f’he  bottom  of  the  wall  is  taken  one  foot  below  the  bottom  of  the  chamber.  The 
value  of  h in  the  formula  will  then  be  equal  to  r -f-  lift  of  lock  -f-  depth  of  water  on 
miter-sill-}-  J,  and  h'  will  equal  the  height  of  the  guard-walls  less  the  rise  r. 

DETAIL  DESCRirXION  OF  THE  SLACK-WATER  SYSTEM. 

Dam  No.  4,  “ 300  feet  long  and  23  feet  high,  and  lock  No.  4,  of  13  feet  lift,  are  located 
on  a solid  rock  foundation,  1.32  miles  below  the  month  of  Howard’s  Creek.  The  lock 
is  on  the  right,  and  connected  with  the  hill-side  by  a guard-bank.  On  the  left,  a bluff 
below  the  railroad  will  form  a natural  abutment.  In  order  to  obtain  a depth  of  7 feet 
of  water  from  the  mouth  of  Howard’s  Creek  to  this  dam,  a channel  will  be  excavated 
through  the  shingle-bar  just  below  the  mouth  of  the  creek.  An  estimate  of  the  cost 
of  this  channel  is  included  in  that  of  the  dam.” 

The  amount  of  the  excavation  required  for  the  lock  is  very  large,  (42,499  cubic 
yards.)  It  is  probable  that  this  amount  may  be  materially  decreased,  if  the  location 
of  the  dam  can  be  moved  up  stream.  The  bend  in  the  stream  a short  distance  below 
the  lock  makes  a large  excavation  necessary  to  provide  a proper  exit  from,  and  ap- 
proach to,  the  tail  of  the  lock.  This,  and  all  other  questions  of  location  suggested  in 
this  report,  can  be  readily  determined  during  the  progress  of  the  work.  The  railroad 
at  this  point  is  out  of  danger. 

“About  200  feet  below  the  dam  the  railroad  crosses  the  river  on  an  iron  undergrade 
bridge  of  four  spans.  The  bottom  chord  of  the  bridge  is  only  20  feet  above  the  surface 
of  the  pool  made  by  dam  No.  5.  One  span  of  this  bridge  will  have  to  be  raised,  in  order 
to  give  sufiScient  height  for  the  chimneys  of  steamers,  and  made  a through  bridge.” 

Dam  No.  5,  450  feet  long  and  20  feet  high,  and  lock  No.  5,  of  9 feet  lift,  are  located 
^^on  solid  rock  foundation,  just  above  Clay’s  mill-dam,  and  3.01  miles  below  dam  No.  4. 
The  lock  is  on  the  right,  and  connected  with  the  railroad  by  a guard-bank.  On  the 
left,  an  abutment  of  masonry  and  a guard-bank  will  also  be  required.” 

The  railroad  is  only  8 feet  above  the  comb  of  the  dam,  and  an  estimate  is  made  for 
relocating  it  higher  on  the  hill-side. 

Dam  No.  6,  4l0  feet  long  and  21  feet  high,  and  lock  No.  6, 10  feet  lift,  “ are  located  on 
a ledge  of  sandstone  1.13  miles  below  dam  No.  5.  The  lock  is  on  the  right,  and  con- 
nected with  the  railroad  by  a guard-bank.  A rock  bluff  on  the  left  forms  a natural 

* Estimated  by  Francis’s  formula,  Q = 3.33  . I .r},\n  which  Q is  the  discharge  in  cubic 
feet  ner  second,  in  this  instance  is  40,000  feet ; I is  the  length  of  the  dam. 

t If  we  make  h'  ==  O,  the  formula  becomes 

^ V a‘  -j-  z — 3 a 

~ 4 

which  is  the  empirical  formula  given  by  Lagrend,  the  column  of  water  and  the  wall 
being  of  equal  height. 


712 


REPORT  OF  THE  CHIEF  OF  ENGINEERS. 


abutment.  The  railroad  at  this  point  is  only  10  feet  above  the  comb  of  dam,  and  will 
either  have  to  be  raised  or  protected  for  a distance  of  0,000  feet  by  an  embankment. 
A dike  along  the  river  would  protect  the  low  grounds  and  railroad.” 

Au  estimate  for  raising  the  railroad  is  included  in  the  estimate  for  the  dam.  An 
alternative  to  the  construction  of  this  dam  suggests  itself  on  an  examination  of  the 
map,  viz : 

To  leave  dam  No.  5 by  a guard-lock,  and  by  means  of  a canal  and  2 locks  through 
the  flats  at  Ronceverte,  to  reach  the  river  below  the  mill  at  the  elevation  necessary  to 
enter  the  pool  of  dam  No.  7.  An  estimate  of  this  alternate  canal  has  been  prepared 
for  comparison,  with  the  following  results  : 


Dam  No.  5,  first  estimate $(12,  089  00 

Lock  No.  5,  first  estimate 11:1,935  68 

Dam  No.  6,  first  estimate 62,  668  40 

Lock  No.  6,  first  estimate 123,544  88 


Total 362, 838  26 


The  total  estimate  for  fhe  alternate  canal  is  $380,946.29,  being  an  excess  of  $18,108.03 
over  the  first  estimate.  The  alternate  estimate  is  but  approximate,  as  the  surveys  do 
not  supply  complete  data,  for  the  alternate  was  not  contemplated  wlien  the  survey  was 
made.  I believe  that  I have  allowed  excessive  quantities  for  this  alternate  line,  and 
that  an  actual  survey  will  show  that  the  cost  will  be  less  than  estimated.  But  even  if 
the  estimated  cost  should  be  not  too  great,  the  contingencies  and  damages  would  be 
less  for  the  canal  than  for  the  dam  and  the  lift-locks.  The  alternate  estimates  were 
for  a canal  120  feet  wide  on  the  bottom,  with  side  slopes  1 on  2,  and  the  walls  of  the 
lower  lock  were  supposed  20  feet  above  the  comb  of  dam  No.  7. 

The  cutting  for  the  upper  canal  was  supposed  to  average  6 feet  deep  throughout, 
and  that  for  the  lower  canal  4 feet  deep.  Of  course  the  location  of  the  lock  is  but  con- 
jectural, and  can  only  be  made  after  survey.  I recommend  the  alternate  canal,  subject 
to  future  survey,  which  should  also  provide  more  complete  data  for  the  change  of  rail- 
road necessary  with  dam  No.  6. 

Dam  No.  7,  350  feet  long  and  18  feet  high,  and  lock  No.  7,  7 feet  lift,  “are  located  on 
a solid  rock  foundation,  1.53  miles  below  dam  6.  The  lock  is  on  the  left  bank,  and  will 
be  connected  with  the  high  ground  by  a guard-bank;  on  the  right  a rock  blulf  under 
the  railroad  will  give  a natural  abutment.” 

An  estimate  for  the  change  of  railroad  is  included  in  the  estimate  of  the  dam. 

I think  it  would  be  well,  during  the  construction  of  the  line,  to  examine  this  site 
with  the  view  of  locating  the  lock  on  the  right  bank,  whereby  the  excavation  for  the 
lock  might  perhaps  be  much  reduced.  The  bend  in  the  river  below  is  not  advantageous 
for  the  lower  approach  as  now  arranged. 

Dam  No.  8,  350  feet  long  and  18  feet  high,  and  lock  No.  8,  of  9 feet  lift,  “are  located 
on  a sandstone  ledge,  covered  with  shingle  on  the  right  bank,  but  well  defined  on  the 
left,  and  1.32  miles  below  dam  No.  7.  The  lock  is  on  the  right,  and  connected  with  the 
railroad  by  a guard-bauk.  On  the  left  an  abutment  of  masonry  and  a short  guard- 
bank  will  connect  the  dam  with  the  hill-side.  The  railroad  is  here  17  feet  above  the 
comb  of  dam,  and  out  of  danger.” 

Dam  No.  9,  320  feet  long  and  6 feet  high,  and  lock  No.  9,  of  13  feet  lift,  “are  located 
on  a sandstone  ledge,  underlying  red  shale,  1.94  miles  below  dam  No.  8.  The  lock  is 
on  the  right,  and  connected  with  the  high  ground  by  a high  bank.  On  the  left  a blutf 
of  red  shale  will  require  a light  masonry  abutment.” 

This  location  is  not  the  most  advantageous  for  the  approaches  to  the  lock,  and  I 
would  suggest  further  examination  in  this  vicinity  for  an  improved  location. 

Dam  No.  10,  435  feet  long  and  20  feet  high,  and  lock  No.  10,  of  13  feet  lift,  “ are  located 
on  a limestone  ledge,  2.14  miles  below  dam  No.  9.  The  lock  is  on  the  left,  and  con- 
nected with  the  railroad  by  a guard-bauk.  On  the  right  a limestone  clitf  fqrms  a nat- 
ural abutment.  Between  this  dam  and  dam  No.  9 the  railroad  crosses  the  river  on  an 
iron  undergrade  bridge,  the  bottom  chord  of  which  is  only  14.5  feet  above  the  surface 
of  the  pool,  and  the  rail  is  only  34  feet  above  it.  Oue  span  of  this  bridge  will  have  to 
be  raised  and  made  a through  bridge,  which  will  give  30  feet  clear  above  the  surface  of 
pool.  Should  more  height  be  required,  it  will  be  necessary  to  change  the  grade  in  a 
tunnel  which  is  not  more  than  400  feet  from  the  abutment  of  bridge.  The  railroad  at 
the  dam  is  15  feet  above  the  comb,  and  out  of  danger.” 

Dam  No.  11,  350  feet  long  and  22  feet  high,  and  lock  No.  11,11  feet  lift,  “ are  located 
on  a limestone  ledge  in  Davis’s  Falls,  and  1.45  miles  below  dam  No.  10.  The  lock  is 
located  on  the  right,  and  connected  with  the  high  ground  by  a guard-bauk.” 

Dam  No.  12,  350  feet  long  and  24  feet  high,  and  lock  No.  12,  of  13  feet  lift,  “ are  located 
on  a limestone  ledge,  0.97  mile  below  dam  No.  11.  The  lock  is  on  the  right,  and  con- 
nected with  the  high  ground  by  a guard-bank.  On  the  left  a limestone  bluff  under 
the  railroad  forms  a natural  abutment.  The  railroad  is  hei'e  28  feet  above  comb  of 
dam,  and  is  out  of  danger.”  The  location  of  this  dam  is  disadvantageous  for  the  ap- 


APPENDIX  V. 


713 


proach  to  the  lock,  and  in  general  it  may  be  said  that  such  must  always  be  the  case 
at  a bend,  unless  the  bend  be  very  slight.  The  boats,  when  the  water  is  up,  must 
enter  the  lock  parallel  to  the  thread  of  the  current.  The  vicinity  of  this  site  should  be 
further  examined,  or  it  may  be  that  an  alternate  canal  from  dam  No.  11  may  render 
the  construction  of  this  dam  (No.  12)  unnecessary. 

An  estimate  of  this  alternate  canal  has  beeu  made.  The  comparison  of  the  two  sets 
of  estimates  gives  the  following  results  : 


Dam  No.  11,  first  estimate $43,310  65 

Lock  No.  11,  first  estimate 125,819  18 

Dam  No.  12,  first  estimate 45,075  80 

Lock  No.  12,  first  estimate 152,456  98 


Total,  first  estimate 366,662  61 

Alternate  estimate 337,449  64 


Difference  in  favor  of  alternate 29, 212  97 


This  alternate  is  shown  on  sheet  No.  1,  and  on  the  cross-sections  of  the  canal-survey. 
I recommend  this  alternate,  subject  to  an  examination  of  the  lock-sites  and  the  char- 
acter of  the  stream  in  their  vicinity. 

Dam  No.  13,  .320  feet  long  and  20  feet  high,  and  lock  No.  13,  of  10  feet  lift,  “ are  lo- 
cated on  a solid  limestone  ledge,  1.56  miles  below  dam  No.  12.  The  lock  is  on  the  right, 
and  connected  with  the  hill-side  by  a short  embankment.  On  the  left  an  abutment  of 
masonry  will  connect  the  dam  with  the  railroad,  which  is  only  13  feet  above  comb  of 
dam.”  An  estimate  for  the  change  of  railroad  is  included.  I would  suggest  a re-ex- 
amination of  this  site  to  decrease  the  great  amount  of  excavation  necessary  for  the 
lock.  It  may  be  that  the  location  of  the  lock  on  the  left  bank,  or  the  location  of  the 
dam  a short  distance  down  stream,  may  fulfill  this  object. 

Dam  No.  14,  310  feet  long  and  26  feet  high,  and  lock  No.  14,  of  12  feet  lift,  “ are  lo- 
cated on  a limestone  ledge,  1.13  miles  below  dam  No.  13.  The  lock  is  on  the  right, 
and  connects  immediately  with  the  hill-side.  On  the  left  a masonry  abutment  will 
connect  the  dam  with  the  railroad,  which  at  this  point  is  only  13  feet  above  the  comb 
of  dam.”  An  estimate  for  the  change  of  the  railroad  is  included  in  the  estimate  for  the 
dam.  “ Below  this  dam  there  is  quite  a number  of  large  bowlders,  which  will  have 
to  be  removed  in  order  to  make  the  channel  of  sufficient  depth  and  width.  This  work 
is  included  in  the  estimate.”  The  excavation  for  this  lock  is  quite  great.  I should 
anticipate  that  a location  some  1,200  feet  up  stream  would  be  an  improvement  in  this 
particular,  the  lock  being  placed  upon  the  left  bank. 

Dam  No.  15,  320  feet  long  and  20  feet  high,  and  lock  No.  15,  of  10  feet  lift,  “ are  lo- 
cated on  a ledge  of  limestone,  1.04  miles  below  darn  No.  14.  The  lock  is  on  the  right, 
and  connected  with  the  high  ground  by  a short  embankment.  On  the  left  an  abnt- 
mentof  masonry  will  connect  the  dam  with  the  railroad.”  An  estimate  for  the  change 
in  the  railroad  is  included  in  the  estimate  of  the  dam.  The  bend  of  the  stream  at  this 
point  makes  it  a disadvantageous  location  for  the  lock.  I would  suggest  au  examina- 
tion of  a site  about  1,000  feet  up  stream ; or  it  may  be  that  a short  canal  may  bo 
located  from  darn  14,  which  will  render  dam  15  unnecessary,  especially  if  the  location 
of  dam  16  be  changed  as  mentioned  in  the  following  description. 

Dam  No.  16,  300  feet  long  and  22  feet  high,  and  lock  No.  16,  of  9 feet  lift,  ‘‘are  lo- 
cated on  a smooth  sandstone  ledge  just  above  Alderson  depot,  and  1.13  miles  below 
dam  No.  15.  The  lock  is  on  the  right,  and  requires  a guard-bank  2,650  feet  long  to  con- 
nect it  with  the  high  ground,  and  protect  the  bottom  lands  below  the  dam.  On  the 
left  an  abutment  will  connect  the  dam  with  the  railroad,  which  is  only  12  feet  above 
the  comb  of  dam,  and  ought  to  be  raised  to  be  out  of  danger.  An  estimate  for  the 
change  of  the  railroad  is  included  in  the  estimate  for  the  dam.  In  order  to  reduce  the 
height  of  the  next  dam  below,  a channel  will  have  to  be  excavated  through  the  shin- 
gle-bar just  below  the  town  of  Alderson.  An  estimate  for  this  work  is  included.”  As 
an  alternative  to  this  dam,  which  will  also  avoid  the  construction  of  dam  No.  17,  the 
following  suggests  itsnlf,  viz,  to  build  a dam  about  2,700  feet  up  stream,  designated 
dam  16  Aon  the  map,  (sheet  No.  2,)  then,  leaving  this  dam  by  a guard-lock  on  the  right 
bank,  to  locate  a canal  th’ongh  the  flats,  and  finally,  as  indicated  on  the  map,  to  enter 
the  pool  of  dam  No.  18  below  Muddy  Creek.  An  estimate  of  this  alternate  has  been 
made,  with  the  following  result: 


Dam  No.  16,  first  esnmate $66,922  65 

Lock  No.  16,  first  estimate 131,211  IB 

Dam  No.  17,  first  estimate 88,115  75 

Lock  No.  17,  first  estimate 126,380  28 

Total,  first  estimate 412,629  86 

Alternate  estimate 444,086  6‘9 

Difference  against  alternate 31,456  8^3' 


714 


REPORT  OF  THE  CHIEF  OF  ENGINEERS. 


But  the  contingencies  will  be  less  in  the  alternate,  the  land-damages  will  be  very 
much  less,  as  well  as  prospective  damages  from  floods,  and  the  long  guard-banks  of 
dams  16  and  17  will  be  avoided. 

The  alternate  canal,  as  estimated  for,  is  120  feet  wide  on  the  bottom  throughout.  I 
recommend  the  adoption  of  the  alternate  line,  subject  to  an  examination  for  the  site 
of  dam  16  A and  for  the  location  of  the  locks  on  the  island  at  Muddy  Creek.  Boring 
should  also  be  made  in  the  flats  in  order  to  assure  the  excavation  of  the  canal  in  loose 
material.  The  following  maybe  found  advantageous.  To  build  dam  16  A somewhat 
higher  than  estimated,  which  would  decrease  the  depth  of  cutting  through  the  flat  and 
perhaps  render  the  canal  from  dam  No.  14  expedient,  thus  avoiding  the  construction  of 
dam  15. 

Da7n  No.  17,  450  feet  long  and  23  feet  high,  and  loek  17,  10  feet  lift,  “are  located  on 
a sandstone  ledge  below  the  mouth  of  Muddy  Creek,  1.59  miles  below  dam  No.  16. 
The  lock  is  on  the  left,  and  requires  a very  long  guard-bank  or  dike,”  and  that  the  rail- 
road be  protected  from  floods.  An  estimate  for  the  change  of  the  railroad  is  included 
in  the  estimate  for  the  dam.  “On  the  right  an  abutment  of  masonry  and  a guard- 
bank  connect  the  dam  with  the  high  ground.  Below  this  dam  the  channel  will  have 
to  be  cleared  of  some  shingle  and  bowlders  in  order  to  be  safe.  This  work  is  included 
in  the  estimate.” 

Dam  No.  18,  450  feet  long  and  20  feet  high,  and  lock  No.  18,  of  11  feet  lift,  “ are  lo- 
cated on  solid  rock  foundation,  2.56  miles  below  dam  No.  17.  The  lock  is  on  the  left, 
and  will  be  connected  with  the  darn  above  by  a guard-baidi.  The  railroad  must  be 
raised  for  about  6,000  feet  up  from  the  dam.”  An  estimate  for  this  change  is  included 
in  the  estimate  for  the  dam.  On  the  right  a masonry  abutment  will  connect  the  dam 
with  the  hill-side. 

Dam  No.  19,  390  feet  long  and  19  feet  high,  and  lock  No.  19,  of  9 feet  lift,  “ are  located 
on  a ledge  of  sandstone,  2.43  miles  below  dam  No.  18,  and  about  one  mile  above  Haines’s 
Ferry.  The  lock  is  on  the  left,  and  is  connected  with  the  railroad  by  a guard-bank. 
The  railroad  must  be  raised  for  about  4,000  feet  for  protection.  An  estimate  for  this  is 
included  in  the  estimate  for  the  dam.” 

Dam  No.  20,  450  feet  long  and  18  feet  high,  and  lock  No.  20,  of  8.5  lift,  “ are  located 
on  a ledge  of  sandstone,  3.56  miles  below  dam  No.  19.  The  lock  is  on  the  left,  and  con- 
nected with  the  high  ground  by  a guard-bank.”  It  would  be  better,  on  account  of  the 
bend  immediately  below,  if  the  location  were  changed  a little  up-stream. 

Dam  No.  21,  420  feet  long  and  18  feet  high,  and  lock  No.  21,  of  8.5  feet  lift,  “ are  lo- 
cated on  a sandstone  ledge,  one-fourth  of  a mile  above  Graham’s  Ferry  and  1.75  miles 
below  dam  No.  20.  The  lock  is  on  the  left,  and  connected  with  the  high  ground  by  a 
guard-bank.  On  the  right  an  abutment  of  masonry  and  a short  guard-bank  connect 
the  dam  with  the  hill-side.  Below  this  dam  there  are  some  bowlders  and  shingle  which 
will  have  to  be  removed  to  make  the  channel  of  sufficient  width  and  depth.  About 
one-fourth  of  a mile  below  dam  No.  21  the,  railroad  crosses  the  river  on  an  iron  through 
bridge  of  four  spans,  of  128  feet  each.  The  bottom  chord  of  the  bridge  is  only  21  feet 
above  the  surface  of  the  pool.”  If  the  railroad  interferes  with  the  navigation  it  may 
be  raised  some  distance  each  side  of  the  bridge. 

Dam  No.  22,  557  feet  long  and  17  feet  high,  and  lock  No.  22,  of  8 feet  lift,  “ are  located 
on  a ledge  of  sandstone,  at  the  head  of  Bacon’s  Falls,  or  the  Great  Falls  of  the  Green- 
brier, and  4.12  miles  below  dam  No.  21.  The  lock  is  on  the  left,  and  connected  with  the 
bluff.  On  the  right  a perpendicular  bluff  of  sandstone  forms  a natural  abutment.  At 
this  point  a canal  has  been  located,  which  runs  back  of  Bacon’s  mill,  and  locks  down 
by  lock  No.  23,  of  11  feet  lift,  into  the  pool  formed  by  dam  No.  23.  This  canal  is  calcu- 
lated of  sufficient  width  for  two  large  boats  to  pass  each  other.” 

Dam  No.  23,  400  feet  long  and  17  feet  high,  and  lock  24,  of  10  feet  lift,  “ are  located 
on  a ledge  of  sandstone  at  the  head  of  the  Little  Falls  of  the  Greenbrier,  and  0.99  mile 
below  dam  No.  22.  The  lock  is  on  the  left,  and  connected  with  the  high  ground  by  a 
guard-bank.  On  the  right  a cliff  of  shale  will  have  to  be  protected  by  a masonry  abut- 
ment. Below  this  dam  there  are  quite  a number  of  bowlders  of  moderate  size  which 
will  have  to  be  removed.” 

Dam  No.  24,  446  feet  long  and  22  feet  high,  and  lock  No.  25,  of  11  feet  lift,  “ are  lo- 
cated on  a ledge  of  sandstone,  one-fourrh  mile  above  Carden’s  White  Sulphur 
Springs,  and  0.  91  mile  below  dam  No.  23.  The  lock  is  on  the  left,  and  is  connected 
with  the  high  ground  by  a guard-bank.  At  this  dam,  an  island  above,  and  one  also 
below,  will  have  to  be  excavated  in  order  to  make  a channel  of  sufficient  widrh.” 
An  alternate  line  from  above  dam  No.  22  is  suggested,  in  detail,  as  follows:  Build  a 
dam,  designated  on  the  map  (Sheet  No.  3)  dam  22  A,  (foundation  solid  rock  and 
length  of  dam  538  feet,)  with  a lift  of  7 feet,  locking  into  the  pool  of  a dam  to  be 
built  near  where  the  crossing  was  made  at  Station  1876  4-  22.  This  dam  would  be 
about  22  feet  high.  In  reply  to  a request  for  information,  Mr.  Talcott  writes  me  as 
follows:  “The  rock  ledge  below  Bacon’s  Falls,  where  line  crosses  to  left  bank,  is  not 
lower  than  about  1,462,  if  as  low,  for  the  fall  from  foot  of  Bacon’s  Falls  to  this  point 
is  very  slight.  A 30-foot  dam  could  be  built  at  this  point  and  be  very  secure,  for  there 
are  natural  rock-abutments  on  both  sides  of  the  river.  You  would  flood  the  present 


APPENDIX  V. 


715 


site  of  Bacon’s  mill,  but  as  the  water-power  would  be  taken  away,  that  would  make 
little  diffeience  in  the  laud-damage.”  Leaving  this  dam  by  a guard-lock  on  the  left 
bank,  a canal  may  be  located  through  the  flats  below,  until  the  line  again  enters  the 
river  below  clam  No.  25.  The  outline  of  these  flats  may  be  seen  by  referring  to  Sheet 
No.  4.  It  is  seen  (Sheet  No.  3)  that  the  line  enters  the  river  at  4 feet  less  elevation 
than  the  bottom  of  the  lock  at  dam  No.  24,  thus  permitting  the  lowering  of  No.  25, 
and  decreasing  the  lift  of  lock  26  by  that  amount. 

An  estimate  of  this  alternate  line  has  been  made  for  comparison,  with  the  following 


result  : 

Dam  No.  22,  first  estimate $43,  363  46 

Lock  No.  22,  first  estimate 108,729  18 

Canal  rouncl  Bacon’s  Falls 33,  312  40 

Lock  No.  23 105,793  18 

Dam  No.  23,  first  estimate - 46,994  60 

Lock  No.  24,  first  estimate 125,531  48 

Dam  No.  24,  first  estimate 71,  307  63 

Lock  No.  25,  first  estimate 115,561  28 

Dam  No.  25,  first  estimate 55,  992  48 

Look  No.  26,  first  estimate 120,  319  38 


Total 826,  690  07 

Alternate  estimate 753,715  19 

Difference  in  favor  of  alternate 62, 974  88 


The  estimate  for  this  alternate  is  but  approximate,  as,  the  line  not  being  contem- 
plated in  the  survey,  our  data  are  not  complete.  I have  every  confidence  that  the 
quantities  are  full  and  the  estimate  is  sufficiently  great.  The  canal  around  Bacon’s 
Falls  is  necessarily  an  awkward  arrangement,  from  the  little  available  space  and  the 
necessary  lengths  of  the  locks.  Dam  No.  23  is  a disadvantageous  location  from  the 
bend  in  the  stream.  Its  location  should  be  changed,  or  the  excavation  for  lock  24 
should  be  greater  than  estimated  for.  The  laud-damage  for  dam  No.  24  would  be 
great,  or  for  the  guard-bank  there  should  be  substituted  a dike  4,800  feet  long,  connect- 
ing this  dam  with  the  one  above,  in  which  case  the  estimate  for  dam  No.  24  would  be 
increased.  I decidedly  recommend  the  alternate  line.  This  alternate  being  adopted. 

Dam  No.  25  will  be  426  feet  long  and  16  feet  high,  and  lock  at  same  (No.  26)  will  be 
of  7 feet  lift.  The  site  is  on  a ledge  “of  sandstone  0.96  mile  below  dam  No.  24.  The 
lock  is  on  the  left,  and  connected  with  the  high  ground  by  a guard-bank.  On  the  right 
an  abutment  of  masonry  connects  the  dam  with  the  hill-side.” 

Dam  No.  26,  350  feet  long  and  23  feet  high,  and  lock  No.  27,  of  11  feet  lift,  “ are 
located  on  a sandstone  ledge  0.92  mile  below  dam  25.  The  lock  is  on  the  left,  and  is 
estimated  for  as  connected  with  the  hill-side  by  a guard-bank,  though  it  might  be 
advisable  to  connect  it  with  the  dam  above  by  a dike  along  the  river,  which  would 
increase  the  estimate  for  guard-bank.”  This  site  is  disadvantageous  for  the  location 
of  the  lock,  and  if  a dam  be  built  near  here  I would  suggest  an  examination  for  a site 
1,000  to  1,400  teet  below,  when  it  might  be  advisable  to  increase  the  lift  of  the  lock 
and  decrease  the  height  of  dam  No.  27  and  the  lift  of  lock  28.  As  an  alternate  to  the 
construction  of  this  dam  the  following  is  feasible,  viz : Leave  dam  No.  25  by  a guard- 
lock  on  the  left  bank,  and  then  by  a canal  and  locks  to  enter  the  river  below  dam  No. 
26,  as  indicated  on  the  map,  (Sheet  No.  3.)  This  alternate  will  enter  the  river  at  2 feet 
less  elevation  than  the  bottom  of  lock  27.  An  estimate  for  comparison  gives  the  fol- 


lowing : 

Dam  No.  25 $40,576  83 

Lock  No.  26 106, 198  88 

Dam  No.  26,  first  estimate 50,  403  55 

Lock  No.  27,  first  estimate 136,260  58 

Dam  No.  27,  first  estimate 42,  867  80 

Lock  No.  28,  first  estimate 123,083  28 

Total 499,  390  92 

Alternate  estimate 455,  441  95 


Difference  in  favor  of  alternate 43, 948  97 


This  estimate  for  the  alternate  is  but  approximate,  but  I am  quite  confident  the 
quantities  assumed  are  sufficiently  full.  I recommend  the  alternate  line,  subject  to 
examination.  If  this  alternate  be  adopted — 

Dam  No.  27  will  be  340  feet  long  and  20  feet  high,  and  lock  No.  28  will  be  8 feet  lift. 
The  site  is  on  a sandstone  ledge  1.55  miles  below  dam  No.  26.  The  lock  is  on  the  right, 
and  connected  with  the  high  ground  by  a guard-bank.  On  the  left  a bluff  of  shale 


716 


REPORT  OF  THE  CHIEF  OF  ENGINEERS. 


will  need  some  masonry  to  protect  it.  A low  dike  may  be  necessary  to  decrease  land- 
damages  by  protecting  the  low  grounds  above.  (See  Sheet  No.  4.) 

Dam  No.  28,  360  feet  long  and  22  feet  high,  and  lock  No.  29,  of  10  feet  lift,  “ are  located 
on  a sandstone  ledge  1.14  miles  below  dam  27.  The  lock  is  on  the  left,  and  connected 
with  the  hill-side  by  a guard-bank.  On  the  right  an  abutment  of  masonry  will  con- 
nect the  dam  with  the  hill-side.” 

As  an  alternate  to  the  construction  of  this  dam,  the  following  may  be  found  avail- 
able, viz  : Build  a dam  as  an  alternate  to  dam  27  (designated  on  Sheet  No.  3 as  dam 
27  A)  near  station  2,152  of  the  transit-line.  Then  leave  this  dam  by  a guard-lock  on 
the  left  bank,  and  by  a canal  and  locks  enter  the  river  below  dam  No.  28.  By  this  line 
the  river  may  probably  be  entered  at  6 feet  less  elevation  than  the  bottom  of  lock  No. 
29,  thus  lowering  the  comb  of  dam  29. 

An  estimate  made  for  comparison  gives  the  following: 


Dam  No.  27,  as  recommended 
Lock  No.  28,  as  recommended 

Dam  No.  28,  first  estimate 

Lock  No.  29,  first  estimate. ... 
Dam  No.  29,  first  estimate. ... 
Lock  No.  30,  first  estimate.  ... 


$35,411  55 
102, 135  88 
53,923  45 
116,921  38 
42,400  75 
112,  172  58 


Total 462,965  59 

Alternate  estimate 486,624  82 

Difference  against  alternate 23,659  23 


The  alternate  estimate  is  only  approximate,  but  1 believe  the  quantities  to  be  very 
full,  and,  there  being  one  less  dam  to  build,  the  contingencies  will  be  less.  I recom- 
mend this  alternate  line,  subject  to  an  examination.  If  this  be  adopted. 

Dam  No.  29,  420  feet  long,  will  be  15  feet  high,  and  lock  No.  30  will  be  4 feet  lift. 
The  site  is  on  a sandstone  ledge,  1.5  miles  below  dam  No.  28.  The  lock  is  on  the  right, 
and  connected  with  the  high  ground  by  a guard-bank.  On  theleft'au  abutment  of 
masonry  connects  the  dam  with  the  steep  hill-side. 

. Dam  No.  30,  340  feet  long  and  22  feet  high,  and  lock  No.  31,  of  11  feet  lift,  “are 
located  on  a sandstone  ledge,  1.49  miles  below  dam  No.  29.  The  lock  is  on  the  left,  and 
connected  with  the  hill-side  by  a short  embankment.  On  the  right  an  abutment  ot 
masonry  will  connect  the  dam  with  the  hill-side.  Below  this  dam  there  are  some  very 
large  bowlders  which  will  have  to  be  removed  to  give  sufficient  water-way.  This 
work  is  included  in  the  estimate.”  The  bend  in  the  stream  at  this  point  renders  this 
site  a very  disadvantageous  one.  I would  suggest  that  the  location  be  made  lower 
down — the  posirion  designated  dam  No.  30  A,  on  sheet.  No.  3. 

The  notes  as  copied  on  the  map  indicate  the  probability  that  rock-foundation  may 
be  found  anywhere  in  the  vicinity.  It  may  also  be  found  that  the  elevation  of  the 
low'er  level  may  be  decreased,  and  that  the  lift  of  the  locks  Nos.  30  and  31  may,  with 
advantage,  be  more  nearly  equalized  by  locating  dam  29  farther  down  stream,  perhaps 
about  opposite  station  54  of  the  line  from  the  portal  of  the  Great  Bend  tunnel. 

Dam  No.  31,  326  feet  long  and  16  feet  high,  and  lock  No.  32,  of  10  feet  lift,  “ are 
loeated  on  a ledge  of  sandstone,  2.67  miles  below  dam  No.  30.  The  lock  is  on  the  right, 
and  connected  with  the  high  ground  by  a short  guard-bank.  On  the  left  a sand-bluff 
forms  a natural  abutment.” 

Dam  No.  32,  465  feet  long  and  14  feet  high,  and  lock  No.  33,  of  2.2  feet  lift,  “are 
located  on  a sandstone  ledge,  1.51  miles  below  dam  No.  31.  The  lock  is  on  the  right, 
and  connected  with  the  railroad  by  an  abutment  of  masonry,  and  a guard-bank  will 
connect  the  dam  with  the  high  ground.” 

This  dam  is  the  last  on  the  Greenbrier  River,  and  connects  the  slack-water  system 
on  that  river  with  that  of  New  River. 

At  this  point  there  exists  a difference  of  recorded  elevations  between  the  notes  of  the 
surveys  of  the  Greenbrier  division  and  those  of  the  New  River.  This  difference  is 
probably  owing  to  a difference  in  the  elevations  assumed  at  the  initial  benches. 

The  elevations  in  the  Greenbrier  survey  are  carried  from  the  initial  bench  of  the 
summit  division  at  the  mouth  of  Fork  Run.  This  difference  of  recorded  elevation  is 
noted,  Mr.  Hutton  tells  me,  in  his  report  on  the  New  River  division. 

In  the  project  of  1872  for  the  slack-water  navigation  of  the  Greenbrier  River,  it  was 
proposed  to  tunnel  the  Great  Bend.  My  opinion  is  opposed  to  this  project.  It  must 
exceed  in  cost  the  slack-water  round  thd  bend  by  a large  amount.  No  estimate  of  it 
is  submitted. 

The  saving  of  distance  does  not  necessarily  produce  a saving  of  time,  for  the  rate  of 
motion  must  be  less  within  the  tunnel  than  in  the  open  river.  The  up-streanj  approach 
would  be  difficult.  Guard-locks  would  there  be  necessary,  and  the  boats  could  not 
enter  them  across  a current  of  even  moderate  velocity,  and  could  not  leave  them  in  the 


; 


APPENDIX  V. 


717 


same  circumstances  without  serious  danger  of  accident  from^  the  leverage  upon  the 
boat  from  the  down-stream  pressure  of  the  current.  Then  the  accumulated  lockage  at 
the  down-stream  end  of  the  tunnel  (92  feet)  would  necessitate  a flight  of  8 or  10  locks 
at  this  point.  The  demands  of  the  line  would  require  that  the  flight  be  double.  The 
cost  of  such  a flight  in  the  narrow  creek-bed  would  be  exceedingly  great,  and  the  ap- 
proach to  the  lowest  locks  must  necessarily  be  difficult,  as  the  objection  to  leaving  or 
entering  the  locks  across  the  current  would  apply  similarly  as  at  the  upper  portal. 

The  total  distance  from  the  mouth  of  Howard’s  Creek  to  dam  No.  42  is  48.32  miles, 
and  the  total  lockage  301.2  feet.  A detailed  estimate  of  the  cost  accompanies  this  re- 
port. The  recapitulated  estimate  of  the  line  as  recommended  is  as  follows  : 


Dam  No.  4 - $59,971  95 

Lock  No.  4 104, 730  98 

Alternate  canal  at  Ronceverte,  to  avoid — 

Dam  No.  6 380,  946  29 

Dam  No.  7 67,437  50 

Lock  No.  7 114,523  48 

Dam  No.  8 41,753  40 

Lock  No.  8 126,  537  38 

Dam  No.  9 .54,743  70 

Lock  No.  9 157,  355  08 

Dam  No.  10 46,742  30 

Lock  No.  10 129,231  28 

Alternate  canal  from  dam  No.  11,  to  avoid — 

Dam  No.  12 337,449  64 

Dam  No.  13 41,7.30  80 

Lock  No.  13 195,360  98 

Dam  No.  14  80,946  00 

Lock  No.  14 156,240  58 

Dam  No.  15.' 53,849  80 

Lock  No.  15 141,454  08 

Alternate  canal,  to  avoid — 

Dams  Nos.  16  and  17 444,  086  69 

Dam  No.  18 84,729  10 

Lock  No.  18 132,015  58 

Dam  No.  19 55,  634  75 

Lock  No.  19 129,  028  18 

Dam  No.  20 47,  235  00 

Lock  No.  20 106,118  38 

Dam  No.  21 45,  477  90 

Lock  No.  21 111,76108 

Alternate,  to  avoid  the  construction  of  dam  No.  22,  locks  Nos.  22  and  23, 
cana  Iround  Bacon’s  Falls,  dams  Nos.  23  and  24,  and  locks  Nos.  24  and  25.  753,  715  19 

Alternate  canal  from  dam  No.  25,  to  avoid  dam  No.  26 455,  441  95 

Alternate  dam  No.  27  and  canal,  to  avoid  dam  No.  28 486,624  82 

Dam  No.  30 58,832  70 

Lock  No.  31 134,174  98 

Dam  No.  31 26, 104  40 

Lock  No.  32 148,226  88 

Dam  No.  32 29,270  40 

Lock  No.  33 •. 83,507  68 


Total 5,682,990  93 

Contingencies,  10  per  cent 568,  299  09 


6,  251,  290  02 

Total  estimate  of  the  slack-water  system  recommended  for  this  division,  including 
10  per  cent,  contingencies,  is  $6,251,290.02.  Attention  is  invited  to  the  remarks  made 
in  the  report  of  the  summit  division,  relative  to  the  cost  of  look  and  dam  masonry. 

The  estimates  for  the  darns  have  been  made  on  the  basis  adopted  by  Mr.  Hutton  in 
the  New  River  division.  Tho  classification  of  the  excavation  for  the  locks  and  dams 
is  the  same  as  adopted  by  Mr.  Talcott  in  his  report  of  1874. 

The  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Railroad  maps  were  used  to  assist  in  the  plotting  of  the 
railroad  and  of  the  bank  of  the  stream  not  covered  by  our  surveys. 

The  estimates  were  made  by  Mr.  J.  L.  Seager. 


718 


REPORT  OF  THE  CHIEF  OF  ENGINEERS. 


Table  showing  length  and  height  of  dams,  height  of  gnard-walls,  and  amount  of  water  each 
dam  will  discharge  before  the  flood  will  reach  the  top  of  the  guard-wall. 


Number  of  dam. 

Length  in  feet. 

Height  in  feet. 

Height  of  guard- 

walls  and  hanks. 

Will  discharge 

cubic  feet  per 

second — 

Remarks. 

4 

300 

23 

17 

70,  000 

5 

450 

20 

14 

78,  400 

6 

410 

21 

14.5 

7.5,  300 

7 

350 

18 

*16 

74,  500 

8 

330 

18 

17 

75,  200 

9 

3-20 

26 

17 

74,  600 

10 

435 

20 

14 

7.5,  800 

11 

350 

22 

16 

74,  500 

12 

320 

24 

17 

74,  600 

13 

320 

20 

17 

74,  600 

14 

310 

26 

17 

72,  300 

15 

320 

23 

17 

74,  600 

16a 

375 

22 

16 

79,  900 

Estimated  height  and  length. 

16 

300 

22 

17 

70,  000 

17 

450 

23 

14 

78,  400 

18 

450 

20 

14 

78,  400 

19 

390 

19 

15 

75,  400 

20 

450 

18 

14 

78,  400 

21 

420 

18 

14 

73,  600 

22a 

530 

15 

13 

82,  700 

22 

557 

17 

13 

86,  900 

23a 

400 

22 

14 

69,  700 

Estimated  length. 

23 

400 

17 

14 

69,  700 

24 

446 

22 

14 

77,  700 

25 

456 

16 

14 

79,  500 

26 

350 

23 

16 

74,  500 

27 

340 

20 

16 

72,  400 

27a 

400 

27 

16 

69, 700 

Estimated  length  and  height. 

28 

360 

22 

16 

76, 700 

29 

420 

15 

14 

77,  000 

30 

340 

22 

16 

72,  400 

31 

326 

16 

16 

69,  400 

32 

465 

14 

14 

81, 100 

GREENBRIER  DIVISION — CANAL  LINE. 

A survey  was  made  for  an  independent  canal  simultaneously  with  the  survey  for  a 
slack-water  navigation. 

The  following  notes  descriptive  of  the  line  of  the  canal-survey,  taken  by  Mr.  Talcott 
in  the  held,  are  copied  from  his  note-book : 

“The  line  for  the  canal  was  begun  at  the  point  on  Greenbrier  River,  above  the  mouth 
of  Howard’s  Creek,  at  which  the  northern  tunnel-line  would  debouch  should  that  be 
chosen.  It  crossed  the  river  immediately,  and  can  be  crossed  over  either  on  aqueduct 
or  slack-water,  there  being  a good  rock-ledge  immediately  at  the  point  at  which  the 
line  crossed.  It  then  was  run  down  on  the  right  of  the  river,  over  the  bottoms,  until 
it  crossed  the  James  River  and  Kanawha  turnpike,  just  below  which  point  the  hill 
closes  into  the  river.  Above  this  point  the  line  was  connected  with  the  line  from  south- 
ern tunnel,  it  being  thought  best  to  run  on  the  feeder-line  and  cross  above  the  bridge, 
where  a good  rock-blutf  forms  a natural  abutment,  and  a ledge  of  rock  making  on 
from  the  left  bank  would  give  a good  foundation  for  piers.* 

“A  connection  was  also  made  near  the  mouth  of  Howard’s  Creek.  From  the  poin  t above 
named,  or  say  station  109  of  canal-line,  down  to  station  180  the  ground  as  a general 
thing  is  rough,  steep,  and  formed  of  bowlders  from  the  hill-side.  The  work  here  might 
be  estimated  as  about  one-half  solid  rock  and  one-half  loose  rock.  At  about  the 
above-named  station  the  line  was  crossed  to  the  left  bank  and  notes  taken  for  either 
an  aqueduct  or  slack-water,  there  being  fine  ledges  for  foundation.  A crossing  was 
also  run  below  the  railroad  bridge,  where  it  would  be  necessary  to  cross  by  aqueduct, 
as  slack-water  would  raise  the  river  so  much  as  to  endanger  the  railroad  bridge.  It 

* At  the  time  the  survey  was  begun  I was  under  the  impression  that  the  canal-line 
should  at  once  cross  to  the  right  bank  of  the  Greenbrier  Ri\er,  and  that  the  elevation 
of  the  summit  would  be  1,720  feet  above  the  tide.  This  being  assumed,  I thought  of 
crossing  the  Greenbrier  on  an  aqueduct  after  tunneling  |hrough  the  crest  where  the 
feeder-tunnel  for  the  summit  is  located.  These  views  are  abandoned  in  the  recom- 
mended location. — T.  T. 


APi’ENDIX  V. 


719 


will  be  necessary  to  cross  the  railroad  at  this  point,  as  here  it  takes  the  right  bank  and 
occupies  the  only  ground  that  could  be  used  for  canal-line.  From  the  bridge  down  for 
about  a mile  there  is  pretty  good  ground,  the  bottom  being  narrow,  but  wide  enough 
for  canal.  Thence  down  the  river  to  a blulf  about  opposite  Clay’s  Mill  the  ground  is 
steep  and  rough  and  of  sandstone,  either  in  ledge  or  bowlders.  It  would  be  safe  tu 
take  three-quarters  solid  rock  and  the  rest  loose  rock  in  the  cutting  required  here. 

“At  the  bluff  opposite  Clay’s  Mill  the  best  plan  would  be  to  tunnel  for  (say)  500  feet, 
as  any  other  method  would  involve  heavy  cutting  iu  limestone  or  a high  retaining- 
wall,  which  would  be  exposed  to  the  strength  of  the  current  in  times  of  high  water. 
After  passing  the  bluff  the  ground  improves,  and  the  bottom  is  wide  enough  for  the 
canal  for  about  2 miles,  when  the  bluffs  close  in  again  and  render  a crossing  to  tho 
right  bank  advisable.  This  crossing  is  at  about  station  495,  and  is  located  on  a good 
ledge  of  rock ; but,  owing  to  the  bauk  being  low  on  both  sides,  if  an  aqueduct  should 
be  adopted,  it  might  be  well  to  run  a little  farther  down  on  the  left  bank  before  cross- 
ing, so  as  to  get  a better  height  for  the  piers. 

“ From  the  crossing  to  the  east  portal  of  Second  Creek  Tunnel,  Chesapeake  and  Ohio 
Railroad,  the  ground  is  open  and  a narrow  bottom,  very  good  for  the  canal.  At  this 
point  the  bluff  comes  iu  again  on  the  right,  and  for  a half  a mile  the  work  would  be 
very  expensive  if  the  line  was  kept  on  the  river;  so  that,  in  order  to  save  distance 
and  probably  some  expense,  atunnol-line  was  run  across  the  neck,  making  about  2,800 
feet  of  tunnel,  and  debouching  on  a narrow  bottom  on  the  river,  saving  about  one  mile 
and  three  quarters  iu  distance.  A'l  of  the  tunnel  will  be  limestone,  which  iu  the  rail- 
road tunnel  worked  well  and  stands  perfectly.  After  running  a short  distance  in  the 
bottom  the  bluffs  close  iu  on  the  river  again,  and  for  three-fourths  of  a mile  and  more 
the  work  would  be  very  expensive  if  kept  out  on  the  bluff.  A sharp  bend  in  the  river 
below  brings  the  bottom  again  on  the  line  ; but  I think  that,  on  a full  examination  iu 
the  office,  a tunnel  through  this  spur  will  be  found  cheaper  and  safer  than  a canal  on 
the  bluff,  and  save  about  three-fourths  of  a mile  in  distance.  All  of  this  bluff  and  si)nr 
are  limestone.  After  running  iu  the  bend  above  mentioned,  a good  bottom-land  is 
struck,  which  lasts  for  about  a mile,  until  ‘ Sinking  Creek  ’ is  reached.  Here  the  bluff 
comes  down  to  the  river  again,  and  is  very  steep  for  about  a quarter  of  a mile.  A 
short  tunnel  may  be  found  advisable  here,  or  else  a sort  of  gallery.  The  rock  is  lime- 
stone. 

“After  passing  this  bluff  the  ground  opens  again  and  is  pretty  good  for  about  a mile, 
when  the  bluff  closes  in  again.  Along  here  the  line  was  run  very  high,  in  hopes  of 
saving  cutting  by  being  above  some  of  the  bluffs,  and  alsoiu  order  to  save  work  below 
where  the  flats  are  high.  The  rock  here  is  still  limestone.  After  passing  these  bluffs> 
the  ground  opens  and  is  pretty  good,  though  rolling  for  some  distance. 

About  station  900  the  rock  changes  to  sandstone,  and  is  almost  all  in  bowlders, 
though  some  ledges  come  down  to  the  river,  and  limesfoue  makes  its  appearance  at 
times.  Along  here,  iu  mo't  cases,  the  line  was  run  too  high,  but  the  cross-sections 
will  give  the  ground  on  which  it  will  be  best  to  put  the  canal,  it  being  impossible  to 
judge  accurately  what  grade  would  be  best  until  the  line  was  run  through.  The  ex- 
cavation,all  the  way  down  to  station  1030.  can  be  taken,  as  a large  proportion  is  through 
bowlders,  which,  iu  most  cases,  are  so  large  as  to  be  classed  as  solid  rock,  so  that  at 
least  75  per  cent,  of  the  excavation  will  be  solid  rock  and  the  remainder  loose  rock 
and  earth,  the  latter  in  small  proportion.  Ac  station  1030,  or  about  1 mile  above  Al- 
dersou’s  station,  the  bluffs  recede  from  the  river,  and  the  bottoms  are  very  favorable 
for  canal. 

“At  station  1063  a cro.ssing  was  made  to  the  lefr.  bank,  so  as  to  take  the  benefit  of  the 
bottom-lands  on  that  side,  where  they  are  much  more  extensive  than  on  the  right,  and 
a line  was  run  and  cross-secaon  taken,  the  above  station  being  equal  to  0 of  that  line. 
The  crossing  was  on  solid  rock  and  was  for  slack-water.  Should  it  be  thought  best  to 
cross  on  an  aqueduct,  it  would  be  better  to  go  about  a mile  and  a half -farther  down 
the  river,  where  good  rock-ledges  can  be  found.  There  is  a good  ledge  in  the  pool 
just  below  Aldersoii’s  and  above  Hill’s  store,  on  the  right  bauk,  at  which  an  aqueduct 
could  be  put.  The  slack-water  crossing  was  made  at  the  point  named,  as  iu  order  to 
get  across  below  it  would  have  been  necessary  to  build  long  dikes  to  protect  the  low 
grounds  from  overflow,  whereas  at  this  point  a dike  about  3,000  feet  long  will  be  all 
that  is  necessary  to  protect  the  right  bank,  and  on  the  left  thei’e  is  nothing  to  over- 
flow. The  line  was  continued  ou  the  right  bank  and  all  the  necessary  cross-sections 
taken,  but  the  ground  iu  many  places  is  of  such  a character  as  to  render  a canal  very 
expensive.  From  Muddy  Creek  down  for  about  2^  miles,  with  few  exceptions,  the 
bluffs  are  close  to  the  river.  The  rock,  in  most  cases,  is  a shaly  limestone,  and  would 
be  easy  of  excavation.  Just  below  the  mouth  of  Griffith’s  Creek  the  bluffs  are  highest 
and  are  of  lamina' ed  stone,  which  would  staud  very  well  in  cuts,  but  I fear  would  not 
be  good  for  tunneling.  The  nver  is  not  wide  enough  to  encroach  on  it  much  without 
danger,  so  that  the  canal  could  not  be  built  out  into  it. 

“ Just  at  the  point  where  Wolf  Creek  Mountain  comes  down  to  the  river,  on  the  left 
bank,  tae  ground  opens  ou  the  right,  and  is  favorable  for  canal  for  about  three-fourths 


720 


REPORT  01’  THE  CHIEF  OF  ENGINEERS. 


of  a mile,  when  it  is  rough  and  rolling  again  for  about  the  same  distance,  and  then 
becomes  very  steep.  The  rock  is  a bastard  limestone  and  some  pure  limestone,  not 
very  hard  to  excavate.  At  about  station  1420,  the  ground  on  right  bank  opens  again, 
and  becomes  very  favorable,  being  river-bottoms  for  about  two  miles.  The  line  on 
the  left  was  run  down  the  railroad,  and  cross-sections  taken  all  the  way  to  the  river. 
The  ground  to  station  240  is  very  favorable,  but  at  this  point  Wolf  Creek  Mountain 
comes  down  to  the  river,  and  for  about  3,000  feet  the  ground  is  rough  and  precipitous 
in  some  places.  At  this  point  the  railroad  runs  close  to  the  river,  and  the  country  road 
just  above  it,  so  that  there  is  no  room  for  a canal  without  throwing  the  railroad  into 
tunnel,  and,  it  may  be,  tunneling  for  canal  for  a short  distance.  Cross-sections  have 
been  taken  of  this  point  to  show  accurately  what  will  be  required,  but  if  the  line  on 
the  left  bank  is  adopted,  the  best  plan  will  be  to  pass  this  point  by  slack-water,  and 
for  that  purpose  a dam  was  located  at  the  upper  end  of  Riff’s  low  grounds,  and  the 
necessary  notes  taken  to  determine  the  cost  of  such  a work.  From  this  point  down  to 
station  335  the  line  is  cross-sectioned,  and  at  that  place  a dam  is  located  to  cross  the 
<janal  over  to  the  right  bank  again,  in  order  to  take  advantage  of  the  low  grounds  on 
that  side;  for  on  the  left  the  cliffs  come  down  to  the  river,  and  for  about  two  miles  the 
work  for  canal  would  be  very  expensive  and  require  a complete  change  in  the  location 
of  the  railroad,  which  cuts  along  on  the  bluffs  for  a short  distance,  and  then  runs  for  a 
mile  over  some  islands,  and,  cutting  through  the  point  of  the  bluffs  again,  emerges  on 
the  river-bottom.  On  the  right,  after  passing  the  low  grounds  above  mentioned,  the 
bluffs  again  close  down  on  the  river,  and  make  it  very  expensive  ground  to  cut  a canal 
through.  This  ground  holds  for  about  2 miles,  with  some  low  flats,  but  as  a general 
thing  it  is  very  bad  for  the  work  required.  Just  above  Graham’s  Ferry  the  ground 
opens  again,  and  from  that  point  to  the  Great  Bend  tunnel  there  is  no  great  difficulty 
in  getting  ground  that  will  suit  without  very  heavy  excavation.  On  the  left  bank, 
after  passing  the  point  on  which  the  railroad  emerges  into  the  open  ground  again 
after  passing  over  the  islands,  the  ground  is  very  favorable,  and  continues  so  as  far  as 
about  half  a mile  below  Graham’s  Ferry,  when  it  becomes  steep  and  rocky  for  about  1 
mile,  but  not  so  bad  as  the  ground  above  Graham’s  Ferry  on  the  right  bank.  At 
Rollinsburg,  opposite  Talcott  station,  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Railroad,  the  ground 
opens  again,  and  is  very  flat  and  low  all  the  way  down  to  opposite  the  mouth  of  the 
proposed  tunnel,  and  would  give  a much  better  approach  to  the  tunnel  than  can  be 
gotten  on  the  right  bank.  The  proposed  tunnel-line  is  more  to  the  left  than  would 
have  been  necessary  but  for  the  railroad,  but  it  can  be  brought  into  open  cutting  in 
a low  place  in  the  ground,  and  then  a short  tunnel  through  a spur  below  will  bring  it 
into  the  open  valley.” 

With  the  foregoing,  and  the  notes  of  the  survey  as  a basis,  the  location  of  the  canal 
was  made.  As  it  was  so  soon  found  necessary  to  change  to  the  left  bank,  the  project 
of  cros.sing  to  the  right  bank  from  the  Howard’s-Creek  approach  was  abandoned,  and 
the  location  of  canal-dam  No.  1 was  chosen  to  form  a slack-water  pool,  into  which  the 
Howard’s  Creek  line  debouched.  There  is  no  room  on  the  left  bank  for  a canal  to  this 
point.  The  canal  leaves  this  pool  by  a guard-lock  on  the  left  bank  and  parses  through 
the  railroad  embankment  immediately  below,  the  railroad  being  carried  over  by  an 
overgrade  truss. 

The  proximity  of  this  dam  to  the  point  where  the  canal  must  pass  under  the  rail- 
road makes  the  location  somewhat  awkward. 

There  will  be  no  space  for  the  beats  to  pass  each  other  from  the  head  of  the  lock  to 
the  lower  side  of  the  railroad-embankment,  and  the  bend  prevents  the  steersmen  of  the 
ascending  and  descending  boats  to  note  each  other’s  approach.  I would  recommend 
that  the  dam  be  built  farther  up  stream,  so  there  may  be  a passing-place  immediately 
below  the  lock,  the  location  to  be  made  during  the  construction  of  the  line.  This 
would  become  imperative  if  the  locks  on  the  line  should  be  doubled  in  the  future. 

Mr.  Talcott  informs  me  that  rock-foundation  can  be  found  anywhere  for  COO  feet  up- 
stream. The  height  of  guard-walls  on  the  canal-line  is  regulated  as  in  the  slack-water 
system.  The  cutting,  for  about  1,000  feet  below  the  railroad,  is  very  heavy,  with  con- 
siderable rock.  The  elevation  of  the  rail  where  the  line,  passes  is  less  than  1,702  feet. 
The  water-surface  of  the  canal  is  1,677  feet,  leaving  little  more  than  20  feet  clear  space 
between  the  water-surface  and  the  lower  chord  of  the  proposed  truss,  (the  grade  of 
the  railroad  being  undisturbed.) 

Again,  a greater  elevation  than  1,677  for  the  comb  of  the  dam  would  increase  the 
amount  of  ground  overflowed  on  both  sides  of  the  river  near  the  Greenbrier  bridge. 
Accordingly,  the  elevation  of  1,670  for  canal-bottom  is  chosen  for  the  initial  level  of 
this  division.  From  this  deep  cut  to  where  the  bluff  closes  into  the  river  at  station  260 
the  elevation  1,670  for  canal-bottom  answers  very  wmll.  Along  this  bluff,  from  station 
259  to  station  30S,  a retaining-wall  is  proposed.  This  retaining- wall  is  pretty  high  in 
places,  (20  to  30  feet;)  it  can  only  be  made  lower  by  increasing  th-'  amount  of  cutting 
or  by  moving  the  wall  into  the  river.  The  cost  of  the  former  would  probably  offset  the 
saving  in  the  amount  of  retaining-wall,  besides  increasing  the  amount  of  excavated 


APPENDIX  V. 


721 


material  to  be  diisposed  of.  The  latter  wonld  decrease  the  available  space  in  the  valley 
for  the  passage  of  Hoods.  I cannot  recommend  this,  with  the  present  lack  of  data. 

Mr.  Talcott’s  notes,  copied  above,  estimate  the  cutting  along  this  bluff  at  f solid 
rock  and  the  rest  loose  rock.  This  estimate  was  probably  for  through-cut.  I have  as- 
sumed a less  proportion  of  solid  rock,  one-half  in  the  worst  places.  With  the  retain- 
ing-wall  on  the  river-side,  the  quantity,  absolute  and  relative,  of  solid  rock-cutting 
is  diminished,  while  where  solid  rock  is  reached,  the  side  of  the  cut  will  bo  more 
nearly  vertical  than  I have  assumed. 

• Between  station  333-1-50  and  339  a retaining-wall  is  again  proposed,  to  avoid  cut- 
ting more  deeply  into  the  bluif  at  the  mill-dam. 

At  station  345  the  first  lift-lock  is  located.  It  is  a question  whether  it  would  not  be 
belter  to  locate  it  on  the  flat  above  the  mill  dam,  to  lessen  the  height  of  the  embank- 
ment and  retaining-wall  from  station  326  to  337.  The  line  is  recommended  as  it  i^, 
for  the  reason  that  effort  has  been  made,  where  the  valley  is  narrow,  to  keej)  the  cana'.- 
bottom  at  least  20  feet  above  the  low-water  line,  to  avoid  interference  from  floods. 
It  may  be  found,  however,  during  the  construction  of  the  line,  that  this  change  r)f 
location  is  advisable.  The  question  may  readily  be  determined  from  the  record  of  the 
highest  flood  on  the  mill-dam,  if  such  record  exist. 

Retaining-wall  on  the  river -side  is  again  resorted  to,  from  station  353-1-50  to  station 
372.  This  wall  is  generally  quite  high,  at  one  place  about  30  feet.  It  is  not  proposed 
lower  for  the  reasons  given  above,  and  because  the  curve  in  the  line  above  the  bluff 
is  disadvantageous  for  the  location  of  the  lock,  which  would  there  become  necessary. 
The  location  through  the  flats  below  this  bluff  calls  for  no  particular  remark.  As  the 
map  shows  the  location  of  each  lock  and  its  lift,  no  special  mention  of  these  matters 
is  necessary. 

As  an  alternate  to  the  expensive  location  along  these  bluffs,  the  following  is  sug- 
gested by  an  examination  of  the  map,  viz : 

Diverge  from  the  line  just  mentioned  at  station  254,  and  enter  by  a flight  of  two 
locks  the  pool  of  a dam  on  the  site  of  dam  No.  5 of  the  slack-water  line.  Leave  this 
dam  by  a guard-lock  (canal-bottom  at  1,648,  probably)  on  the  right  bank,  and  then  by 
a canal  through  the  slough  at  Ronceverte,  looking  into  the  river  below  the  mill,  as 
indicated.  Build  a dam  on  the  site  of  dam  No.  6,  with  comb  at  1645,  (probably,)  and 
then  by  a lift-lock  gain  the  flats  and  the  original  line  on  the  left  bank  at  about  station 
393.  To  supply  the  water  for  lockage  at  this  point,  (which  would  be,  in  fact,  a second- 
ary summit,)  a feeder-canal  could  be  constructed  along  the  bluffs.  The  location  of 
the  alternate  line  and  the  feeder  is  shown  on  sheet  No.  1. 

Estimates  of  the  alternate  line  and  the  canal-line  along  the  bluffs  give  the  following 
results : 


Line  along  bluffs |563,  968  93 

Alternate 357,543  25 

Difference  in  favor  of  alternate 206,  425  68 


The  land-damage  will  be  greater  in  the  latter  than  in  the  former ; the  contingencies 
would  probably  not  differ  much,  as  the  foundation  of  most  of  the  retaining-wall  would 
be  laid  at  low-water.  I believe  a canal  on  the  right  bank  at  this  point  would  be  the 
more  convenient  for  the  local  trade. 

As  this  alternate  was  not  anticipated  at  the  time  of  the  survey,  our  data  are  not 
complete,  and  the  estimate  is  but  approximate,  though  I believe  ample  iu  quantity. 
It  would  be  better  if  a location  for  the  lower  dam  were  made  farther  down  the  river, 
so  that  the  lift- lock  on  the  left  bank  would  be  farther  removed  from  the  influence  of 
the  overflowing  water.  I recommend  this  alternate,  subject  to  a special  examination 
on  this  latter  point.  It  is  more  subject  to  freshets  than  the  line  along  the  bluff •*, 
though  this  loses  much  of  its  force,  as  the  canal-line  has  several  other  points  of  slack- 
water. 

The  retaining-wall  is  in  a degree  subject  to  the  force  of  the  floods,  especially  the 
portion  below  station  348-f-11.4,  where  the  flood  must  necessarily  impinge  upon  it  at 
quite  an  angle.  The  retaining-wall  is  subject  to  frost,  also,  though  this  water-line  is 
comparatively  free  from  it. 

The  next  matter  of  interest  is  the  question  of  passing  the  Second  Creek  Beud.  By 
a reference  to  Sheet  No.  2,  and  to  the  notes  copied  in  the  opening  of  this  part  of  the 
report,  it  is  seen  that,  immediately  below  dam  No.  7^,  the  bluff  closes  in  on  the  left 
bank  for  about  a mile  and  a half.  The  bluff  on  the  right  bank  closes  into  the  river 
above  the  Second  Creek  tunnel,  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Railroad,  and  continues  so  for 
more  than  half  a mile.  The  bluff  on  the  left  bank  again  closes  into  the  river  below 
the  mouth  of  Second  Creek,  and  continues  so  round  the  bend. 

The  canal-surveys  were  made  with  the  object  of  tunneling  this  bend  from  the  lower 
end  of  the  flats,  on  the  right  bank,  to  the  ravine  below  the  bend.  Dam  7 ^ was  located 
for  the  crossing  to  the  right  bank.  I have  concluded,  upon  a study  of  the  subject,  to 
abandon  the  tunnel-proiect,  and  to  recommend  a line  round,  partly  slack-water  and 

46  E 


722 


REPORT  OF  THE  CHIEF  OF  ENGINEERS. 


partly  caual,  as  indicated  on  Sheet  No.  2.  Fortunately,  the  notes  of  the  slack-water 
survey  supply  data  for  quite  an  approximate  estimate  for  the  line  round  the  bend. 

Dam  No.  9,  with  comb  4 feet  higher  than  for  slack-water,  will  permit  the  line  on  the 
left  bank  to  enter  below  dam  7^,  with  an  elevation  of  canal-bottom  of  1,526.  The  line 
can  then  leave  this  pool  on  the  right  bank  at  the  dam,  and  pass  through  the  flats  and 
under  the  railroad,  as  shown  on  Sheet  No.  2.  There  is  quite  a scant  space  under  the 
railroad,  only  17.6  feet  from  water-surface  to  the  top  of  the  rail.  I would  suggest  that 
an  examination  be  made  before  construction  for  a site  for  a dam  above  the  mouth  of 
Second  Creek.  In  reply  to  questions  about  this  matter,  Mr.  Talcott  writes  me  as  fol- 
lows : 

“I  think  that  if  you  adopt  slack- water  at  this  point,  it  would  be  better  and  less 
costly  to  make  the  dam  about  where  the  transit-line  crossed  the  river  above  Second 
Creek. 

* * # # 

In  regard  to  the  foundation  of  the  dam  above  Second  Creek,  I cannot  speak  with 
certainty,  for  I did  not  make  any  close  examination  at  that  point,  but  I am  confident 
that  you  will  find  rock  in  about  10  feet  of  water,  or,  say,  at  the  elevation  of  the  ledge 
selected  for  dam  No.  9.  In  the  elbow,  just  below  Second  Cr<-ek  mouth,  the  ledge  shows 
in  about  12  feet  of  water,  but  above  the  falls  and  about  the  lower  end  of  the  clitfs,  on 
the  right  bank,  the  rock  must  be  higher.  I mention  this  only  as  a suggestion,  tor,  not 
having  the  plans  to  look  at,  I may  be  wrong.-’^ 

The  estimate  is  made,  supposing  this  lock  and  dam  to  cost  the  same  as  if  the  site  of 
dam  No.  9 were  taken,  including  guard-bank,  while  the  estimate  for  the  canal  is  made 
from  the  upper  site  suggested. 

The  location  of  the  canal  round  the  bend  is  but  approximate,  and  it  may  be  changed 
somewhat  in  plan  after  an  examination  of  the  ground. 

To  avoid  the  bluffs  opposite  Fort  Spring,  an  aqueduct  over  Sinking  Creek,  and  the 
bluffs  below,  the  line  enters  the  river  before  the  f«jrmer  bluff’s  are  reached.  A dam  on 
the  site  of  dam  No.  11,  with  the  comb  6 feet  higher  than  for  the  slack-water  system, 
(i.  e.,  28  feet  high,  canal-bottom  at  1,602,)  will  back  the  water  up  for  this  purpose.  The 
line  leaves  this  pool  on  the  right  bank  by  a guard-lock.  From  this  point  the  line  must 
remain  on  the  right  bank  till  Alderson  is  reached. 

Throughout  most  of  the  distance  the  construction  of  the  line  will  be  expensive;  the 
cutting  will  be  heavy,  and  the  excavation  will  consist  largely  of  loose  and  solid  rock. 
Mr.  Talcott,  in  his  notes,  referring  to  the  line  from  station  900  to  10.30,  says,  “ At  least 
75  per  cent,  of  the  excavation  will  be  solid  rock,  and  the  remainder  loose  rock  and 
earth,  the  latter  in  small  proportion.”  In  the  estimates  I have  classrd  the  excavation 
differently,  for  I have  made  very  little  thorough  cut,  and,  the  slopes  being  assumed 
one  in  one  nearly  the  entire  distance,  the  areas  of  excavation  will  be  much  larger  than 
will  be  necessary  when  solid  rock  is  met  with.  I kept  the  area  of  excavation  large, 
as  I wished  to  make  a location  which  would  be  found  practicable  in  the  actual  con- 
struction; and  then,  to  compensate  for  this  in  the  estimates,  I classified  the  excavation 
as  nearly  all  loose  rock,  the  remainder  earth. 

The  table  of  estimates  accompanying  this  report  is  so  arranged  that  any  other  classi- 
fication may  readily  be  made  if  desired.  About  1 mile  above  Alderson,  on  the  right 
bank,  the  ground  becomes  very  favorable  for  a canal,  and  continues  so  for  about  9,000 
feet ; then  for  more  than  3 miles  the  ground  is  generally  unfavorable,  and  a canal  along 
the  hill-side  would  on  this  bank  be  very  expensive.  Near  station  1300  the  ground  again 
becomes  favorable,  and  continues  so  for  nearly  a mile,  when  the  steep  ground  again 
comes  close  to  the  river,  and  canalling  would  be  very  expensive  for  more  than  a mile. 
Near  station  1410  the  hill  recedes  from  the  river,  and  a broad  flat  affords  excellent 
ground  for  a canal  to  station  1526,  a distance  of  about  2 miles.  Again  the  ground  be- 
comes difficult  for  more  than  2 miles  farther,  or  nearly  to  Graham’s  Ferry. 

Upon  the  left  bank,  commencing  at  Alderson,  the  ground  is  favorable  till  Wolf  Creek 
Mountain  is  reached,  where  if  a canal  occupies  the  hill-side  the  railroad  must  be  put 
into  a tunnel  1,700  to  1,800  fee  in  length. 

Immediately  below,  the  ground  is  very  favorable  for  about  a mile  and  a half,  when 
if  the  canal  be  kept  out  of  the  river  the  location  of  the  railroad  must  be  changed  for 
about  a mile  and  two-thirds,  passing  through  two  tunnels  on  the  way.  From  station 
430  to  Graham’s  Ferry  the  left  bank  is  very  favorable  for  the  location  of  the  canal. 

With  the  view  of  presenting  data  for  alternate  estimates,  the  surveys  included  both 
banks  from  Alderson  to  Graham’s  Ferry,  and  the  lines  have  been  located  accordingly, 
as  follows : 

1.  A line  from  station  1018  (being  a continuation  of  the  line  described  above)  to 
Graham’s  Ferry,  with  the  object  of  avoiding  the  crossing  at  Alderson. 

2.  Crossing  at  Alderson  ana  remaining  on  the  left  bank  to  Graham’s  Ferry. 

Ist.  From  station  1018  the  line  continues  through  the  fl-its  till  the  steep  hill-side 
above  Muddy  Creek  is  reached.  Here  the  line  goes  into  slack-water  to  avoid  the  diffi- 
cult ground  above  and  below  Muddy  Creek,  and  the  aqueducts  over  this  and  the  sev- 
eral streams  below.  The  line  passes  into  the  slough  by  a flight  of  two  locks,  and  then 


APPENDIX  V. 


723 


crosses  the  island  as  indicated,  locking  into  tbe  river  with  canal-bottom  at  tbe  eleva- 
tion 1520.  Tbe  surveys  did  not  include  this  island,  and  tbe  lock  may  not  be  in  the 
most  favorable  place.  A dike  is  proposed  along  this  slongb  and  on  tbe  island  to  keep 
out  tbe  floods  from  the  flight  of  locks  to  tbe  lock  at  tbe  bead  of  tbe  pool. 

Tbe  estimates  for  excavation  and  embankment  in  this  locality  are  but  approxi- 
mate, but  it  is  believed  tlu^y  are  ample.  The  elevation  (1520)  for  canal-bottom  in  tbe 
pool  is  thought  attainable  from  tbe  bottom  elevations  shown  at  dam  No.  7.  This  is  1 
foot  lowmr  than  tbe  elevation  for  tbe  slack-water  line  in  tbe  pool  below  this  dam.  An 
examination  may  show  the  elevation  1521  to  be  better 

Tbe  object  of  this  slack-water  being  to  avoid  tbe  steep  bill-side  and  tbe  aqueducts 
from  Muddy  Creek  to  station  1300,  a site  for  a dam  was  at  first  thought  of  near  sta- 
tion 1296. 

Mr.  Talcott  informed  me  by  letter  that  a good  foundation  for  a dam  could  be  found 
anywhere  between  Wolf  Cr^ek  and  dam  IH.  A location  was  begun  for  a canal  on  tbe 
right  bank  from  this  dam  to  the  lower  end  of  tbe  flats  below.  But  in  this  distance 
tbe  river  has  but  a few  inches  fall  and  a slack-water  reach  made  to  avoid  tbe  blufts 
below  might  as  well  extend  up  to  the  proposed  dam.  I finally  decided  to  use  tbe  site 
of  dam  No.  18.  then  to  leave  this  dam  by  a guard-lock  on  tbe  left  bank,  and  by  a abort 
canal  and  lock  to  again  enter  tbe  river  above  tbe  mouth  of  Wolf  Creek.  I prefer  this 
method  to  locating  the  dam  farther  down  and  locking  directly  from  pool  to  pool, 
because  tbe  boats  will  now  pass  from  one  pool  to  tbe  other  pretty  well  removed  from 
tbe  influence  during  high  water  ot  tbe  currents  near  tbe  dam.  The  guard-lock  as 
locate*  permits  passage  through  tbe  guard  bank  some  distance  from  tbe  dam.  In  tbe 
pool  below  dam  No.  18  tbe  elevation  1506  is  taken  for  canal-bottom.  Special  exami- 
nation may  show  that  it  will  be  advisable  to  increase  this  1 foot.  This  stretch  of  slack- 
wmter  is  to  be  formed  by  a dam  below'  tbe  bluffs  on  tbe  right  bmk.  Leaving  this  dam 
by  a guard-lock,  the  line  proceeds  through  tbe  flats  on  the  right  bank,  and,  to  avoid 
the  bluffs  above  Graham’s  Ferry,  again  takes  tbe  slack- water,  formed  by  tbe  pool  of  a 
dam  on  the  site  of  dam  No.  21.  Below  this  dam  the  railroad  crosses  tbe  river  and 
slack- w'aier  is  again  resorted  to,  by  w^bicb  tbe  line  passes  under  the  bridge. 

2d.  Alternate  line  on  tbe  bank  from  Aldersou.  Returning  to  sr.ation  1018  on  right 
bank  above  Aldersou,  and  leaving  tbe  first  described  line,  the  alternate  enters  tbe  pool 
of  dam  No  16,  with  canal-bottom  at  tbe  elevation  1540.  It  may  be  that  this  pool 
might  be  entered  with  this  elevation  just  below  Rattlesnake  Shoals,  more  than  a mile 
above,  thus  saving  tbe  excavation  of  that  length  of  canal.  But  it  is  probable  that 
the  approach  to  and  exit  from  tbe  locks  would  not  be  as  convenient  at  any  point  above 
their  proposed  location.  Beside.s,  more  locks  would  be  necessary  in  tbe  flight,  or  much 
shorter  levels  would  be  required.  Tbe  latter  would  not  be  desirable,  and  the  former 
would  render  double  locks  necessary  at  tbe  outset.  Tbe  elevation  chosen  for  this  dam 
is  tbe  same  as  adopted  for  tbe  slack-water.  A higher  dam  would  require  greater 
expense  for  changing  tbe  railro  id,  while  a lowmr  one  would  require  an  increase  in  the 
already  heavy  cutting  through  the  town  of  Aldersou.  Tbe  lino  leaves  this  dam  by  a 
guard-lock,  and  to  make  room  for  it  on  tbe  river-bank  it  will  be  necessary  to  change 
the  location  of  tbe  railroad  and  tbe  railroad-depot.  This  relocation  has  been  made  by 
Lieutenant  Maguire.  It  can  be  but  approximate  above  tbe  dam,  as  tbe  surveys  did 
not  include  that  ground. 

Below  Aldersou  the  line  requires  no  special  mention  till  the  long  curve  is  passed, 
nearly  3 mil*  s below  the  dam.  Here,  from  insufficiency  of  room  outside  tbe  railroad, 
the  line  passes  into  tbe  slough.  Dikes  along  tbe  islands  and  across  tbe  sloughs  wdll 
keep  tbe  floods  out  of  the  canal.  At  Wolf  Creek  a location  has  been  made  for  the 
canal  on  tbe  s de-bill,  and  a location  has  been  indicated  on  tbe  map  for  tbe  railroad, 
by  which  it  is  ibrowu  into  a tunnel  till  this  mountain  is  passed.  The  map  suggests 
at  this  point  a similar  alternate  to  that  at  Ronceverte,  viz,  to  construct  a dam  at  the 
location  indicated  below  tbe  bluff'.  This  location  was  surveyed  for  a canal-dam.  Then, 
from  tbe  pool  of  this  dam,  lock  up  to  tbe  flats  and  connect  with  the  original  line.  This 
will  require  a feeder  along  tbe  hill-side  to  supply  water  ior  this  secondary  summit. 
The  alternate  line  diverges  from  tbe  first  location  at  station  202,  and  enters  tbe  river 
with  tbe  elevation  1506,  for  canal-bottom,  as  proposed  for  tbe  line  from  dam  No.  18. 

Estimates  made  of  tbe  twm  methods  of  passing  Wolf  Creek  Mountain,  give  the  fol- 
lowing comparison : 

Canal-line  along  bluff,  railroad  in  tunnel,  from  station  225  to  station  271 ..  |345,  458  50 
Altercate  slack-water  and  feeder  canal,  from  station  206  to  station  271..  221,870  10 


Difference  in  favor  of  alternate 123,588  40 

Tbe  former  estimate  would  be  greater  if  it  included  tbe  distance  from  station  206 
to  station  225. 

Thn  estimate  for  tbe  tunnel  supposes  tbe  rock  to  stand  wffthout  lining.  The  tunnel 
is  for  a double-track  road.  The' objections  to  slack-water,  particularly  as  tbe  dam  is 
low,  are  here  very  well  provided  against,  as  tbe  boats  in  tbe  up-stream  approach  to  tbe 


724 


REPORT  OF  THE  CHIEF  OF  ENGINEERS. 


locks  at  the  clam  will  be  quite  out  of  the  immediate  influence  of  the  overflowing  water, 
anci  a crib-work  of  little  extent  would  make  them  still  more  secure.  The  feeder- 
canal  will  require  an  unimportant  change  of  the  railroad.  This  change  is  included  in 
the  above  estimate.  Through  the  flats  below,  the  line  requires  no  special  remark. 

From  station  344  to  430,  there  is  no  room  for  a canal  between  the  railroad  and  the 
river.  If  the  canal  be  kept  on  the  river-bank  the  railroad  must  be  put  into  tunnel 
from  about  station  360  to  about  station  380,  and  again  for  about  .550  feet  through  the 
spur  at  the  foot  of  the  islands.  In  that  case  the  canal  can  keep  in  the  slough  betcveen 
these  tunnels  by  raising  the  present  railroad  embankment  slightly.  The  railroad 
must  of  course  pass  along  the  hill-side  inside  the  slough.  The  slack-water  device  may 
be  again  availed  of,  to  avoid  this  change  in  the  railroad,  as  follows  : Diverge  from  the 
first  line  at  station  344,  and  enter  the  river  by  a flight  of  locks.  The  elevation  1497 
can  probably  be  attained  for  canal-bottom.  Build  a dam  on  the  site  of  dam  No.  20, 
and  then  by  a second  flight  of  locks  ascend  to  the  flats  on  the  left  bank,  and  join  the 
first  line  as  indicated  on  the  map.  (Sheet  No.  2.) 

A feeder  must  be  built  to  supply  the  secondary  summit  near  station  450.  The  con- 
struction of  this  feeder  is  somewhat  complicated.  The  elevation  of  the  canal-bottom 
at  this  secondary  summit  is  1513.  The  canal-bottom  has  the  same  elevation  at  station 
.344,  w^here  the  alternate  leaves  the  first  line,  and  the  summit  near  station  4.50  must 
then  be  fed  from  above  the  lock  at  station  332.  The  surface  of  the  canal  at  station 
450  is  at  the  elevation  1520.  The  canal-surface  at  station  332  is  at  the  elevation  1.528. 
The  distance  between  these  two  points  is  more  than  2 miles  ; the  fall  in  water-surface 
is  8 feet.  All  of  this  fall  cannot  be  used  unless  the  railroad  were  raised  for  a distance 
of  about  2 miles.  The  elevation  of  the  track  at  station  351  -|-  47  is  but  1524,  leaving 
but  4 feet  of  fall  available  between  this  point  and  station  450.  The  space  outside  the 
railroad  and  along  the  bluffs  below  Albert’s  Gut  is  very  restricted,  and  the  section  of 
the  feeder  should  be  as  small  as  possible.  To  overcome  the  difficulty,  a wide  cut  is  pro- 
posed from  the  summit,  near  station  450,  to  the  slough  above.  This  practically  extends 
the  summit-level  up  to  the  head  of  the  slough  near  station  380.  Then  by  closing  the 
outside  of  Albert’s  Gut  a reservoir  is  formed,  which  is  the  upper  extremity  of  the 
feeder.  The  surface  of  the  feeder  at  this  point  is  taken  at  the  elevation  1522,  which 
permits  a fall  of  2 feet  to  the  summit  at  station  381.  Room  may  then  be  obtained  for 
the  feeder  outside  the  railroad  without  disturbing  it. 

The  reservoir  at  Albert’s  Gut  may  be  supplied  from  the  canal  above  the  lock  at  sta- 
tion 332,  by  a short  feeder-canal  inside  the  railroad,  the  water  being  permitted  to  flow 
from  the  main  canal  to  this  feeder  and  under  the  railroad,  the  track  passing  over  the 
cut  on  piers  and  longitudinal  timbers.  A similar  change  in  the  cut  from  one  side  of 
the  railroad  to  the  other  will  be  necessary  before  station  450  is  reached.  The  change 
is  indicated  between  stations  426  and  427.  It  is  proposed  to  carry  the  track  over  on 
piers,  permitting  a free  space  of  100  feet  for  the  flow  of  water  from  the  left  to  right  of 
the  railroad. 

In  considering  this  slack-water  alternate  with  that  at  Wolf  Creek  it  will  be  seen 
that,  if  both  be  adopted,  the  Wolf  Creek  feeder  must  supply  both  secondary  summits 
and  the  entire  canal  from  station  270  to  Graham’s  Ferry.  It  has  been  estimated  ac- 
cordingly, and  to  decrease  the  amount  of  water  necessary  the  locks,  both  at  the  dams 
and  at  the  head  of  the  ppols,  have  been  arranged  in  flights,  although  the  guard-walls 
of  the  lower  lock  should  be  carried  nearly  or  quite  as  high  as  the  walls  of  the  upi)er 
one  of  the  same  flight.  Were  it  not  for  the  desire  to  decrease  the  amount  necessary,  a 
single  lock  of  double  lift  would  answer  the  purpose.* 

Estimates  of  cost  give  the  following  for  comparison  of  the  original  line  and  this 
second  alternate : 

Canal  along  the  bank  and  through  the  slough,  the  railroad  being  put  into 

tunnels  and  on  to  the  hill-side  from  station  344  to  lock  at  station  483..  $499,  259  18 


Alternate,  station  344  to  station  483  268,  224  98 

' \ 

Difference  in  favor  of  alternate 231, 034  20 


The  railroad-tunnels  are  for  double  track  and  are  supposed  not  to  require  lining. 

The  two  alternates  save  on  the  estimated  cost  a total  of  $384,623.60. 

From  station  483  to  Graham’s  Ferry  the  location  is  simple.  At  this  latter  point  the 
line  as  recommended  enters  the  river  to  pass  under  the  railroad  as  recommended  for 
the  line  on  the  right  bank.  The  comparison  of  cost  of  the  two  lines  from  Aldersou 
to  Graham’s  Ferry  can  now  be  made. 

* With  alternate  passages  no  water  is  saved  in  dividing  the  entire  lift  into  several 
smaller  ones.  Alternate  passages  may  be  infrequent,  and  therefore  there  will  be  a 
saving  of  water  by  using  several  locks  of  less  litt,  instead  of  one  lock  of  greater  lift. 
There  may  be  a saving  in  first  cost  by  constructing  a single  lock  of  sufficient  lift  at  the 
outset.  Then,  when  the  commefce  of  the  line  increases  sufficiently,  the  second  lock  of 
the  flight  might  be  built,  and  the  lift  of  the  first  diminished  by  half. 


APPENDIX  V. 


725 


lliglit  hank. 


Station  1020  to  lock  at  bead  of  pool  above  Wolf  Creek $331,222  26 

From  pool  at  Wolf  Creek  to  canal  dam  No.  4 and  lock 135,541  62 

Canal  dam  No.  4 to  Grabands  Ferry 211,  494  50 


Total  678,258  38 

Left  hank. 

Station  1020  on  right  bank  above  Aldersou  to  station  225  above  Wolf 

Creek $389,890  59 

Station  225  to  271 — slack-water  alternate 221,870  10 

Station  271  to  344  52,  478  85 

Station  344  to  483— slack- water  alternate 268, 224  98 

Station  483  to  Graham’s  Ferry Ill,  026  17 


Total  left  bank 1,  043,  490  69 

Deduct  estimate  for  right  bank 678,258  38 


Left-bank  estimate  exceeds  that  for  right  bank 365,232  31 


If  the  slack-water  alternate  be  rejected  for  the  line  on  the  left  bank,  the  difference 
against  the  left  bank  will  be  $749,8.56.91. 

The  estimates  are  exclusive  of  laud- damages,  the  difference  in  which  could  not  be 
so  great  as  to  affect  the  decision  with  the  above  disparity  of  cost.  The  right  bank  is 
recommended. 

Before  proceeding  further  in  the  detailed  description  of  the  canal-line  proposed'from 
Graham’s  Ferry,  it  will  be  advisable  to  consider  the  Great  Bend  (sheet  No.  4)  as  a 
whole. 

When  the  surveys  began  I was  of  the  opinion,  from  what  had  been  recommended  in 
previous  surveys,  that  the  Second  Creek  Bend  would,  without  doubt,  be  tunneled  for 
an  ordinary  canal-line,  and  that  the  Great  Bend  would  be  passed  bj’^  a tunnel,  whether 
canal  or  slack-water  were  adopted  from  Kanawha  Falls  to  the  Greenbrier  Bridge.  So 
coutideut  was  I of  this,  that  I gave  instructions  that  the  canal-survey  need  not  be  car- 
ried round  the  Second  Creek  Bend,  and  I was  also  thoroughly  convinced  that  it  would 
be  a waste  of  time  to  survey  the  river  round  the  Great  Bend.  Accordingly,  in  the 
former  case,  only  the  slack-water  line  was  run,  and  our  data  supply  but  approximate 
estimates  for  a canal,  but  I am  confident  they  are  ample. 

Further  study  of  the  subject  of  tunnel  cuts-off  for  navigation  modified  my  views, 
and  I telegraphed  to  Mr.  Talcott,  in  the  field,  to  carry  the  slack-water  survey  around 
the  Great  Bend.  I still  adhered  to  the  purpose  of  tunneling  here  for  the  ordinary  canal. 
I have  abandoned  all  the  tunnel  cuts-off.  The  objections  to  a slack-water  tunnel 
through  the  Great  Bend,  mentioned  in  the  description  of  the  slack- water  line,  apply  to 
the  canal  project  also.  These  objections  are,  difficulty  of  approach,  expense,  accumu- 
lated lockage  at  the  down-stream  end,  whereby  a long  flight  of  locks  (double)  would 
be  necessary  in  a narrow  ravine  and  creek-bed,  and  a loss  of  time,  offsetting,  in  a great 
measure,  the  gain  in  distance. 

Fortunately,  the  notes  of  the  slack- water  survey,  carefully  collated,  demonstrate  that 
a line  round  the  bend  is  practicable  at  moderate  expense.  It  has  been  noted  that  the 
lines  from  Aldersou  to  Graham’s  Ferry  unite  above  the  railroad-bridge,  passing  under 
in  a slack-water  pool.  This  is  necessary,  as  the  canal-line  should  not  cross  the  railroad 
at  or  near  a grade.  As  the  railroad  crosses  from  one  bank  to  the  other,  both  lines  (left 
bank  and  right  bank)  are  compelled  to  pass  in  the  same  manner. 

To  form  this  slack-water  pool,  a dam  is  proposed  below  Bacon’s  Falls  at  station 
1876  -f- 22.  The  availability  of  this  site  was  shown  in  the  description  of  the  slack- 
water  line.  This  dam  will  be  about  27  feet  high.  The  line  will  leave  this  pool 
by  a lift-lock  on  the  left  bank.  I recommend  that  this  lock  be  built  as  a guard- 
lock  inside  the  dam,  and  a lift-lock  outside,  so  that,  when  there  be  a rise  on  the 
comb  of  the  dam,  the  upper  or  the  guard  lock  will  become  a lock  with  a lift  equal 
to  this  rise.  Otherwise,, from  the  great  height  of  gates  necessary,  the  maneuvers 
might  be  too  difficult  in  a high  flood.  With  an  ordinary  guard  and  lift  lock  the 
lift  would  be  the  normal  lift  increased  by  the  height  of  the  flood.  Security  is  offered 
against  accident  by  dividing  this  entire  lift  into  two  of  less  height.  From  this  dam 
the  line  keeps  on  the  left  bank,  as  shown,  to  about  station  2050,  passing  over  Stoney 
and  Little  Stoney  Creeks  on  acpieducts,  and  inside  the  knoll  at  the  Blue  Hole.  At 
about  station  2060  the  hills  close  into  the  river  on  the  left  bank,  and  the  ground 
opens  on  the  right.  A dam  at  this  point,  of  sufficient  height  to  cross  to  the  flats  oppo- 


726  REPORT  OF  THE  CHIEF  OF  ENGINEERS. 


site,  would  supply  slack-water  navigation  from  above  Stoney  Creek.  If  tbe  crossing 
were  made,  the  same  difficulty  would  be  met  with  round  the  next  bend,  where,  if  a 
crossiug  were  made,  the  water  would  be  backed,  to  the  previous  crossing,  with  suffi- 
cient depth  to  afford  a constant  slack-water  navigation.  The  same  state  of  affairs 
would  exist  at  the  lower  end  of  the  flats  below  the  second  crossiug.  The  best  solution 
of  this  is,  probably,  to  enter  slack-water  at  station  2050,  locking  down  13  feet  for  this 
purpose.  Then,  if  a dam  be  built  near  station  2150,  with  comb  at  the  elevation  1,427, 
the  pool  of  a dam  on  the  site  of  dam  No.  29  may  be  attained  by  a lift  of  10  feet.  The 
latter  dam  will  permit  the  line  to  leave  on  the  right  bank,  by  a guard-lock,  at  suffi- 
cient height  for  crossing  the  creek  below.  It  may  be  necessary  to  locate  the  former 
dam  lower  down  than  indicated. 

Mr.  Talcott  writes  me  that  “ Good  foundation  can  be  had  for  a dam  some  distance 
above  dam  28,  but  I do  not  know  certainly  of  any  at  tlie  head  of  the  flat  on  left  bank. 
I think,  however,  that  you  would  be  safe  in  assuming  a good  one  anywhere  there  if 
you  allowed  a good  sum  for  the  foundations.’^ 

The  location  from  the  dam  below  Bacon’s  Falls  is  approximate  only,  and  a special 
survey  would  probably  modify  it  in  detail,  both  as  to  plan  and  the  location  of  the  locks. 
In  the  estimates  my  endeavor  has  been  to  have  the  quantities  full ; I believe  the  exca- 
vation will  be  found  in  excess.  Masonry  can  be  more  closely  approximated  to.  The 
estimated  cost  of  the  line  round  the  bend  ($898,392.86)  is  much  less  than  what  the  tun- 
nel cut-off  could  be. 

From  the  ravine  at  the  western  portal  of  the  Great  Bend  tunnel  (Chesapeake  and 
Ohio  Railroad)  to  the  junction  with  the  New  River  division  the  location  was  made  by 
Lieutenant  Maguire.  From  the  ravine  the  canal  keeps  on  the  right  bank  to  station 
248  of  tlie  line  from  the  tunnel-portal,  passing  over  Powley’s  and  Big  creeks  on  aque- 
ducts of  small  span.  At  station  248  the  line  enters  the  pool  of  a dam  on  the  site  of  dam 
No.  32,  with  canal  bottom  at  the  elevation  1,368.8,  (according  to  the  Greenbrier  levels.) 
At  dam  No.  32  a guard-lock  on  the  right  connects  the  Greenbrier  and  the  New  River 
divisions.  The  quantity  of  retaiuiug-wall  necessary  and  the  heavy  excavation  render 
this  section  quite  expensive. 

It  might  be  found  on  examination  that  the  following  line  would  be  an  available  and 
a desirable  substitute,  viz : Leave  the  dam  near  2150  by  a guard-lock  on  the  left  bank, 
and  then,  by  canal,  through  the  flat,  enter  the  river  where  the  bluffs  close  in  below, 
with  the  elevation  1,396  or  less  for  canal-bottom.  Build  a dam  at  the  site  30  A,  with 
comb  at  elevation  1,403  or  less.  This  dam  would  not  be  more  than  23  feet  high. 
Lock  down  from  this  dam  to  the  elevation  1,386  or  less,  according  to  location  above. 
At  station  194  build  a dam  with  comb  at  the  elevation  1,393  or  less.  There  is  a rock 
foundation  here.  The  dam  would  be  24  feet  high.  Lock  down  from  this  dam  to  eleva- 
tion 1,376,  (probably.)  Build  a dam  on  the  site  of  dam  No.  32,  with  comb  at  the  ele- 
vation 1,383,  (probably,)  and  there,  by  a guard  and  lift  lock,  as  at  1876-f-22,  connect 
with  the  New  River  division.  This  last  dam  would  be  19  feet  high,  and  the  lock  7.2 
feet  lift,  (probably.)  This  method  w'ould  add  but  one  more  slack-water  pool  to  the 
line,  and  I should  expect  a saving  of  about  $300,000  in  the  estimated  cost.  The  data 
now  at  hand  are  not  sufficient  for  an  accurate  estimate  of  this  substitute,  and  in  the 
project  offered  I wish  to  have  as  little  conjectural  as  possible.  The  Great  Bend  should 
again  be  surveyed  for  the  accurate  location  of  the  line,  and  the  examination  for  this 
suggested  substitute  could  be  made  at  the  same  time.  A good  amount  might  be  saved 
on  the  estimates  by  going  into  slack-water  above  Powley’s  Creek,  but  it  would  be  as 
well  to  examine  the  above  substitute  before  adopting  either.  Detailed  estimates  of 
€Ost  accompany  this  report.  The  estimates  have  been  subdivided,  so  that  a compara- 
tive estimate  of  any  change,  however  small,  may  be  readily  made  at  any  time  in  the 
future. 

The  earth-excavation  for  locks  is  estimated  at  10  cents  extra  per  cubic  yard  to  cover 
the  replacing  of  this  earth  as  an  embankment  on  the  sides  of  the  locks.  When  possi- 
ble, the  excavation  is  intended  to  supply  the  embankment  required.  The  possible 
difficulty  of  procuring  good  stone  for  cut  masonry  was  mentioned  in  the  report  of  the 
summit  division. 

Nearly  all  the  estimates  of  quantities  for  the  Greenbrier  division  were  made  by 
Lieutenant  Maguire.  Mr.  J.  L.  Seager  made  those  for  the  slack-water  alternates  ex- 
clusive of  lock  masonry.  The  estimates  for  the  recommended  canal-line  for  the  Green- 
brier division  aggregate  $4,538,349.85.  The  slack-water  estimates  exceed  this  by 
$1,712,940.17. 

I have  not  considered  it  necessary  to  prepare  a comparison  of  their  respective  ad- 
vantages in  the  Greenbrier  division,  as  I suppose  the  decision  of  the  question  whether 
the  canal  or  the  slack-water  shall  be  chosen  will  depend  on  the  New  River  division.  It 
may  be  well,  however,  to  note  that  on  the  Greenbrier  the  canal-line  as  recommended 
consists  in  good  part  of  slack- water,  while  the  slack-water  system  consists  in  a good 
part  of  canal. 


APPENDIX  V. 


727 


RECAPITULATION  OF  ESTIMATES  FOR  CANAL-LINE  AS  RECOMMENDED, 
Greenbrier  division. 


Howard’s  Creek  to  station  254 $231,  &60  43 

Station  254  to  station  397  slack-water  alternate,  avoiding  canal  along 

bluffs  at  Ronceverte 357,543  25 

Station  397  to  pool  of  dam  No.  9 ; 99,208  38 

Dam  No.  9 to  dam  No.  11  and  lock,  inclusive 433, 165  64 

Dam  No.  11  to  station  1020 626,279  60 

Station  1020  to  pool  at  Wolf  Creek 331, 222  26 

Pool  at  Wolf  Creek  to  Graham’s  Ferry 211,  494  50 

Great  Bend  section 898, 392  86 

Great  Bend  to  mouth  of  Greenbrier 799,  805  67 


3,  988,  972  59 


Guard-cribs  at  12  dams,  at  $5,000 60,  000  00 

Land  damage : 

48  miles  long  and  0.06  mile  wide  (316.8  feet)  = 2.88  square  miles  = 

1,843.2  acres,  at  $25 46,  080  00  , 

Grubbing  and  clearing: 

48  miles  long  and  0.02  mile  (105.6  feet)  wide  = 614.4  acres,  at  $50. ..  30, 720  00 

Contingencies,  10  per  cent 412,  577  26 


Total  canal  estimates,  Greenbrier  division 4,538,349  85 

If  line  along  bluffs  at  Ronceverte  be  adopted,  there  must 

be  added  to  above  estimate $206,  425  68 

Contingencies,  10  per  cent 20,642  37 

227, 068  25 


4,765,418  10 

All  of  which  is  respectfully  submitted. 

Thomas  Turtle, 

First  Lieut,  of  Engineers. 

Maj.  Wm.  P.  Craighill, 

Corps  of  Engineers,  U.  S.  A. 


REPORT  ON  RE-EXAMINATION  AND  SURVEY  OF  THE  NEW  FIVER  DIVISION,  SURVEY  OF 
1874,  BY  MR.  N.  H.  HUTTON,  ASSISTANT  ENGINEER. 

Baltimore,  May  28,  1876. 

Colonel:  I have  the  honor  to  submit  the  following  report  of  the  results  of  the 
re-examination  and  survey  of  the  New  River  division  of  the  central  water-line,  made 
under  your  direction  during  August,  September,  and  October  of  1874. 

Your  instructions,  dated  July  15,  1874,  said  * * * “not  later  than  August  1, 

you  will  enter  upon  a resurvey  of  the  Greenbrier  River  below  Howard’s  Creek,  and  of 
New  River  below  the  Greenbrier,  the  object  being  to  fix  the  precise  location  of  dams 
and  other  details  of  the  slack-water  navigation  of  those  streams,  with  the  collection  of 
such  additional  information  as  will  enable  a detailed  determination  to  bo  made  of  the 
location  and  cost  of  the  canal  which,  by  some  engineers,  is  considered  a necessity  for 
that  part  of  the  line,  and  by  others  a desirable  though  not  a necessary  alternative  to 
the  slack-water.  You  will  keep  in  view  also  the  possible  advantages  to  be  gained  by 
resort  to  tunnels  for  avoiding  difficult  places,  in  the  valley  of  New  River  especially, 
and  thereby  at  the  same  time  shortening  the  line,  either  for  canal  or  slack-water  navi- 
gation.” 

“ It  is  desirable,  if  possible,  that  the  information  you  vvill  gain  be  such  as  to  enable 
the  work  along  that  portion  of  the  line  to  be  put  promptly  under  contract  should  Con- 
gress provide  the  means.”  # * # # if 

Under  these  instructions,  the  organization  of  two  engineering  parties  was  at  once 
commenced,  one  for  the  examination  of  the  slack-water  scheme  and  the  other  for  the 
survey  of  an  independent  lateral  canal. 

On  the  1st  of  August  both  parties  were  assembled  in  camp  at  the  mouth  of  Howard’s 
Creek,  and  operations  were  commenced  at  that  point.  A rapid  reconnaissance  mean- 
time was  made  of  the  valleys  of  the  Greenbrier  and  New  Rivers,  which  developed  the 
impracticability  of  procuring,  over  this  whole  distance,  the  amount  and  quality  of 
information  called  for  by  your  instructions  with  the  time  and  money  at  my  disposal. 


728 


REPORT  OF  THE  CHIEF  OF  ENGINEERS. 


I was  accordingly  relieved  of  the  duty  of  examining  the  Greenbrier  division,  and  the 
parties  under  rny  charge  were  transferred  to  the  New  River,  at  the  mouth  of  the  Green- 
l)rier,  where  the  lield-work  was  resun*ed  on  August  8,  continuously  carried  forward  to 
Kanawha  Falls,  and  completed  about  November  1. 

Throughout  this  division  (62  miles  in  length)  transit  and  level  lines  were  run  by 
both  parties,  and  soundings  were  made,  where  practicable,  to  determine  the  form  and 
character  of  the  river-bottom,  depths  of  water,  &c. 

Using  the  survey  of  1872  (made  under  the  late  Mr.  E.  Lorraine)  as  a basis,  sites  for 
locks  and  dams  were  selected,  surveyed,  and  marked  in  the  held,  the  governing  con- 
siderations being  that  all  dams  should  be  located  on  foundations  of  solid  rock,  should, 
if  possible,  be  at  least  600  feet  long  on  the  crest,  and  that  they  should  nowhere  endan- 
ger, by  overflow,  the  track  of  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Railroad  during  floods  of  equal 
volume  to  that  of  1861. 

An  experimental  line  for  a lateral  canal,  with  cross-sections  of  the  surface  at  every 
hundred  feet,  was  traced  and  marked  from  the  last  dam  on  the  Greenbrier  to  the  pool 
above  Kanawha  Falls,  a distance  of  60  miles.  The  location  was  governed  by  the  con- 
sideration that  the  top  of  the  tow-path  bank  should  be  two  feet  above  the  flood-line  of 
1861,  the  marks  of  which  were  obtained  and  noted  wherever  practicable. 

Detailed  surveys  and  measurements  were  made  to  determine  the  cost  of  removing 
from  the  river-bed  the  masses  of  loose  rock  which  now  encumber  it  between  Keeny’s 
Shoals  and  Narrow  Falls,  a distance  of  about  20  miles,  through  what  is  sometimes 
called  the  “gorge”  of  New  River. 

Surveys  were  made  with  a view  of  cutting  off  bends  in  the  immediate  valley  of  New 
River  by  means  of  tunnels,  wherever  practicable,  and  extended  reconnaissances  and 
surveys  were  made  to  determine  the  practicability  of  suggested  lines  using  tunnels 
outside  the  limits  of  the  immediate  valley,  and  cutting  off  .large  sections  of  the  river 
proper. 

Since  the  completion  of  the  field-work,  the  want  of  money  has  greatly  retarded  the 
preparation  of  maps,  drawings,  and  estimates  of  cost,  which  have  mainly  been  done 
by  the  office  staff  when  they  could  be  spared  from  other  duties.  Nevertheless,  it  is  be- 
lieved that  the  papers,  drawings,  &c.,  herewith  submitted  furnish  all  the  information 
called  for  by  your  instructions. 


PLANE  OF  REFERENCE. 

The  levels,  as  marked  and  described  on  the  maps,  drawings,  x>i'ofiles,  &c.,  refer  to 
elevations  above  tide- water  at  Richmond,  Va. 

The  basis  for  all  the  levels  was  a bench-mark  on  the  left  bank  of  the  Greenbrier, 
near  our  initial  jioint,  established  by  the  party  under  the  late  Mr.  Ed.  Lorraine,  in 
1872.  This  bench-mark  was,  in  turn,  established  by  levels  based  upon  a bench-mark 
established  by  parties  under  Mr.  W.  R.  Hutton,  in  1870,  on  the  left  bank  of  the  Green- 
brier, near  the  mouth  of  Howard’s  Creek,  the  levels  having  been  brought  over  the 
Alleghanies  hy  these  parties. 

During  the  summer  of  1874  other  lines  of  levels  were  brought  over  the  Alleghanies 
by  parties  under  Lieut.  Thomas  Turtle,  United  States  Engineers,  which  were  found  to 
difler  somewhat  from  those  of  1870,  and  upon  their  prolongation  to  the  mouth  of  the 
Greenbrier  this  difference  was  increased  largely,  so  that,  according  to  the  last  levels 
run,  our  bench-mark  at  initial  point  was  4.8  feet  too  low.  This  discrepancy  was  not 
discovered  until  the  field-work  and  notes  of  both  divisions  were  completed,  and,  in 
order  that  the  drawings  might  correctly  represent. the  contents  of  the  note-books,  the 
original  levels  have  been  retained  and  marked,  so  tliat  the  water-surface  at  dam  No. 
32  of  the  Greenbrier  division  appears  to  be  4.8  feet  higher  on  the  maps  and  profiles  of 
that  division  than  the  level  of  the  same  point  ap))ears  to  be  on  the  maps  and  profiles 
of  the  New  River  division.  In  other  words,  to  reduce  the  levels  of  New  River  divis- 
ion to  correspond  to  those  of  the  Greenbrier  division,  4.8  feet  must  be  added  to  them. 

GENERAL  FEATURES  OF  THE  COUNTRY. 

The  New  River,  throughout  the  yiortiou  which  was  embraced  within  the  limits  of 
Ihis  survey  and  report,  presents  in  various  degrees  of  development  in  its  different  sec- 
tions the  contracted  valley  and  sudden  changes  of  slope  usually  found  in  streams  flow- 
ing through  mountainous  districts.  Between  the  Greenbrier  and  Kanawha  Falls,  the 
river  may  be  divided  into  four  sections,  possessing,  in  varying  and  increasing  propor- 
tions, from  the  upper  to  the  lower  end,  the  characteristics  referred  to. 

The  fiist  section  (about  15  miles  long)  extends  to  Meadow  Creek,  with  an  average 
fall  (excluding  the  abrupt  fall  at  Richmond’s)  of  about  7 feet  per  mile.  The  valley, 
thongli  narrow,  presents  usually  on  one  side  or  the  other  strips,  at  least,  of  bottom- 
land, and  the  hill-slopes  are  not  continuously  precipitous. 

The  second  section  (about  25  miles  long)  extends  to  Sewell,  with  an  average  fall  of 
about  y feet  per  mile.  The  valley  becomes  more  contracted;  bottom-land  (properly 


APPENDIX  y. 


729 


so  called)  lias  almost  entiiely  disappeared,  its  only  ropresentatkve  being  short  stretches 
of  high  bench-land.  Vertical  cl  ids  impinge  more  freciueutly  upon  the  water’s  edge, 
and  the  hill-slopes  are  everywhere  ragged  with  masses  of  rocks  detached  from  the  cliffs, 
always  found  at  short  distances  in  the  rear.  At  this  })oint  (Sewell)  is  usually  said  to 
commence  the  “gorge”  Avhere  the  river  breaks  through  the  high  lands  couuectiug  the 
Gauley  Mountains  with  those  of  Coal  River. 

The  third  section  (12  miles  in  length)  extends  to  Hawk’s  Nest,  with  an  average  fall 
of  17  feet  per  mile.  Throughout  this,  as  well  as  the  following  section,  the  river  has 
cut  its  way  over  a thousand  feet  deep  through  the  highlands,  and  were  it  not  for  the 
more  friable  nature  of  the  materials  encountered,  (sandstones  and  shales,)  Avould  pre- 
sent all  the  features  of  a veritable  canon  as  found  in  the  metamorphic  regions  of  the 
Great  Basin. 

Both  valley  and  river-bed  are  very  much  contracted,  with  steep  slopes  of  loose  rock 
thrown  down  from  the  cliffs.  The  water-way  is  frequently  clogged  with  large  masses 
of  rock,  through  which  the  river  alternately  rushes  with  violence  in  many  narrow 
streams,  or  eddies  in  deep  and  sluggish  pools. 

The  fourth  section,  extending  to  Narrow  Falls,  about  seven  miles  in  length,  has  an 
average  fall  of  19  feet  per  mile,  and  is  the  culmination  of  the  gradual  increase  of  rug- 
gedness, contraction,  and  slope.  Though  the  average  fall,  as  stated,  is  19  feet,  there 
are  several  miles  in  which  the  fall  is  nearly  80;  there  can  hardly  be  said  to  be  any  valley  ; 
the  vertical  and  at  times  overhanging  cliffs  rise  abrubtly  from  the  w^ater’s  edge,  or 
are  at  best  oulj^  separated  from  it  by  a sloping  mass  of  loose  rock  of  all  shajies  and 
sizes;  the  masses  of  rock  cumbering  the  water-way  appear  at  times  almost  to  have 
absorbed  the  river,  which  truly  offers  at  first  sight  small  chance  for  improvement. 
From  this  point  (Narrow  Falls)  to  the  Kanawha  Falls  the  river  extends  in  a wide  pool 
of  varying  depth,  the  side-hills  come  closely  down  to  the  river  until  the  Gauley  enters 
on  the  right  bank,  from  which  to  the  falls  the  valley  expands  on  that  bank  in  a wide 
fiat.  The  width  and  depths  of  water-way  on  this  whole  division  vary  so  frequently 
and  so  greatly,  that  it  would  be  impossible  to  give  an  accurate  general  statement  of 
them ; it  may,  however,  be  roughly  said  in  the  first  section  the  width  is  from  400  to 
80t)  feet,  with  a depth  of  from  7 to  12  feet  in  the  pools;  in  the  second  section,  from  250 
feet  to  400  feet,  with  the  same  depths  in  the  pools;  and  in  the  third  and  fourth  sec- 
tions it  rarely  ever  exceeds  250  feet  in  width,  and  is  often  less  than  200  feet,  with 
depths  in  the  pools  as  great  at  places  as  30  to  40  feet. 

It  flows  in  alternating  pools  and  rapids,  with  depths  in  the  latter  varying  from  a few 
inches  in  the  ujiper  sections  of  the  river  to  10  feet  in  the  lower  portions.  The  only 
vertical  falls  encountered  are  Richmond’s,  about  ten  miles  below  the  Greenbrier,  where 
the  river  falls  28  feet,  15  feet  being  nearly  vertical  over  a ledge  of  hard,  conglom- 
erate sandstone;  and  Kanawha  Falls,  where  it  descends  194-  feet  over  a ledge  of  sand- 
stone. In  both  cases  the  river  has  a width  of  over  1,000  feet  on  the  high-water  Crest- 
line, and  immediately  above  the  river  is  very  shallow.  At  Richmond’s  Falls,  the  hill- 
slopes,  or  cliffs,  come  closely  down  to  the  water’s  edge  on  both  sides  of  the  river;  at 
Kanawha  Falls,  the  hills  come  down  closely  on  the  left  bank,  and  a wide,  low  bottom 
extends  along  the  right  bank. 

The  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Railroad  occupies  the  right  bank  of  the  river,  from  the 
Greenbrier  to  Hawk’s  Nest,  and  the  left  bank  thence  to  Kanawha  Falls.  The  rock  ex- 
posed throughout  is  mainly  a compact  sandstone,  iu  nearly  horizontal  beds,  occasion- 
ally overlaid  with  real  shale,  and  sometimes  merging  into  a hard  conglomerate,  as  at 
Richmond’s  Falls.  The  hill-slopes  are  generally  formed  of  debns  from  the  a Ijaceut  cliffs 
iu  the  upper  portion,  to  some  extent  mixed  with  alluvial  deposits;  but  lower  down 
they  form,  as  before  stated,  almost  pure  masses  of  detached  rock.  A large  majority  of 
the  shoals  are  composed  of  loose  rock  and  bowlders  forming  dams,  over  and  through 
which  the  river  flows,  and  which  have  apparently  (after  the  manner  of  the  formation 
of  “ pot-holes  ”)  abraded  and  broken  up  the  bed-rock  to  great  depths,  rendering  these 
apparently  natural  sites  for  dams  actually  the  least  desirable,  in  so  far  as  foundations 
are  concerned.  For  this  reason  it  will  be  found  that  in  the  present  project  the  dams 
are  frequently  located  in  the  deep  water,  above  the  shoals,  giving  an  increased  height 
of  masonry,  but  securing  undoubted  rock-foundations.  Except  at  the  shoals,  the 
soundings  indicated  generally  a bottom  of  rock  iu  ])lace,  with  little  or  no  deposit  over- 
lying  it.  The  bottom-lands  have  generally  a loose,  sandy  soil,  in  most  cases  inti- 
mately mixed  with  debris  from  the  cliffs. 

The  side-hills  are  almost  entirely  destitute  of  anything  like  soil  in  masses,  such  as 
there  is  being  swallowed  up  iu  the  crevices  of  the  loose  rock  which  everywhere  cov- 
ers their  slopes.  Nevertheless,  walnut  and  poplar  timber,  of  large  size  and  excellent 
quality,  abounds  on  these  slopes  throughout  the  whole  d stance. 

The  sandstone  everywhere  found  is  of  excellent  quality  for  building  purposes,  and 
easily  quarried,  in  immediate  proximity  to  the  sites  where  required  for  use. 

The  question  of  water-supply  does  not  enter  into  the  discussioti  of  any  method  of 
navigation-improvement,  as  its  abundance  is  undoubted,  its  superabundance  during 
freshets  being  the  most  formidable  obstacle. 


730 


REPORT  OF  THE  CHIEF  OF  ENGINEERS. 


Until  the  construction  of  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Railroad,  owing  to  the  scarcity 
of  arable  land,  the  valley  between  the  Greenbrier  and  Kanawha  Falls  was  an  unknown 
land,  except  to  parties  of  surveyors  or  hunters  who  at  long  intervals  forced  their  way 
down  it.  Owing  to  this  absence  of  settlement,  we  have  not  only  no  accurate  record  as 
to  the  volume,  frequency,  and  duration  of  floods,  but  not  even  the  ordinary  hearsay 
information  usual  in  such  cases.  The  wild  and  gloomy  appearance  of  the  river  through 
the  “ gorge,”  as  seen  from  the  cliffs  above,  has  doubtless  caused  an  exaggeration  of 
their  heights  and  violence,  great  as  they  undoubtedly  are  ; but  that  they  attained 
great  heights,  with  extreme  rapidity,  is  all  that  we  really  do  know.  During  the  sum- 
mer of  1861  occurred  a freshet  which  is  admitted  by  the  few  old  settlers  scattered 
throughout  the  valley  to  have  been  the  greatest  known  for  forty  years ; and  of  this 
some  few  records  of  heights  are  obtainable,  though  that  they  are  uucertaiu  may  be 
admitted,  when  it  is  known  that  at  one  point  a difference  was  found  of  7 feet  in  the 
elevations,  as  given  by  different  persons  claiming  to  have  seen  and  noted  the  flood  at 
its  height.  However,  this  flood,  and  the  measures  of  it  thus  obtained,  have,  since  its 
occurrence,  been  used  as  the  standard  of  reference  by  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Rail- 
road Company  and  for  all  projected  improvements  of  the  river,  including  the  projects 
herewith  submitted.  To  determine  its  volume,  reference  has  been  had  to  its  reported 
observed  height  of  8 feet  just  above  the  crest  of  Richmond’s  Falls. 

It  has  been  assumed  that  for  a length  of  1,200  feet  (which  is  less  than  the  develop- 
ment of  the  crest-line  by  probably  15  per  cent.)  the  discharge  was  equivalent  to  that 
over  a weir  having  8 feet  depth  above  the  comb.  This  would  give  a volume  for  this 
flood  of  about  90,000  cubic  feet  per  second,  which  is  the  amount  that  has  been  assumed 
heretofore  as  well  as  in  this  project  to  determine  proportions  of  guard-walls  and  banks 
and  the  heights  of  dams  with  reference  to  the  railroad.  From  observations  at  other 
points  of  the  water-marks  of  this  flood,  combined  with  the  cross-sections  of  the  valley, 
I am  inclined  to  the  belief  that  this  estimate  of  quantity  is  exaggerated.  It  is  true 
that  the  data  available  are  too  rude  for  other  than  a very  approximate  solution  of  the 
question,  and  altogether  insufficient  to  justify  the  construction  of  works  on  any  other 
basis  previous  to  the  procurement  of  more  reliable  information.  The  matter  is  referred 
to  simplj"  to  call  the  attention  to  thepossiUUty  of  greatly  lessening  the  cost  of  any  scheme 
of  improvement  by  the  aid  of  more  full  and  reliable  data  as  to  the  floods.  The  reasons 
for  a belief  in  this  possibility  are  twofold  ; in  the  first  place,  the  observed  height  of 
8 feet  at  Richmond’s  Falls  was  toward  (if  not  on)  the  left  bank,  from  which  extends, 
for  more  than  half  the  total  width  of  the  river  an  irregular  island,  (or  peninsula,)  im- 
mediately below  the  crest  of  the  falls,  at  some  points  really  connected  with  it,  at  many 
nearly  of  equal  height,  and  covered  throughout  with  loose  rock  and  a dense  growth 
of  timber,  which  during  this  great  freshet  was  in  full  foliage.  It  seems  almost  impos- 
sible that  this  obstruction  to  the  free  escape  of  the  water  should  not  have  caused 
an  elevation  of  the  level  of  the  crest  on  this  part  of  the  line  over  that  portion 
which  afforded  a free  discharge,  and  consequently  the  assumption  that  8 feet  was  the 
average  depth  is  an  overestimate.  Secondly,  a comparison  of  the  observed  heights  of 
the  flood,  at  some  points,  with  the  cross-sections  of  the  valley,  with  liberal  allowances 
for  the  unknown  and  for  errors  in  the  known  quantities,  indicates  a volume  not  ex- 
ceeding 60,000  or  65,000  cubic  feet  per  second.  Should  this  assumption  proveto  be 
true,  it  will  result  that  the  project  as  now  presented  will  tax  the  work  with  difficulties 
of  execution  and  operation  in  excess  of  any  probable  requirements.  The  evidence  of 
flood-heights  in  the  “ gorge”  of  50  to  60  feet  was,  at  the  time  of  this  survey,  confined 
to  a single  log  lodged  in  the  cliffs,  in  the  right  bank,  below  Cotton  Hill  station.  This 
undoubtedly  presented  evidence  of  abrasion,  as  if  by  contact  with  water  and  rocks, 
yet  it  may  have  come  down  the  hill  and  not  up,  for  almost  immediately  below  it 
(about  30  feet)  is  a cave  or  hole  in  the  cliffs,  so  situated  that  it  would  seem  impossible 
for  all,  if  any,  of  the  drift  entering  it  to  escape ; yet  a careful  investigation  failed  to 
discover  any  signs  of  such  deposit  within  it. 

SLACK-WATER  IMPROA'EMENT. 

The  general  arrangements  for  this  method  of  improvement,  as  set  forth  in  the  report 
of  survey  in  1872,  made  under  your  direction  by  the  late  Mr.  E.  Lorraine,  necessarily 
formed  the  basis  of  operations  for  this  re-examination.  There  remained  only  to  be  de- 
termined the  feasibility  and  costs  of  eliminating  from  that  project  certain  features 
(mainly  relating  to  the  foundations  for  and  length  of  dams)  which  were  considered 
objectionable. 

The  question  of  water-supply,  as  before  stated,  does  not  enter  into  the  question,  ex- 
cept as  to  protection  against  its  superabundance. 

The  result  of  the  re-examination  will  probably  be  more  readily  appreciated  by  a 
summary  of  the  leading  features  of  the  former  project  and  that  now  presented  for  con- 
sideration. As  arranged  and  estimated  for  in  1872,  the  plan  embraced  (between  the 
mouth  of  Greenbrier  and  the  pool  below  Kanawha  Falls)  38  dams,  9 of  which  were 
located  on  foundations  of  loose  rock.  Their  average  length  on  crest  was  581  feet;  mini- 


APPENDIX  V. 


731 


mum  length,  317  feet ; and  average  height  above  foundations,  feet.  (The  maximum 
lift  at  any  one  lock  being  25  feet.)  The  project,  as  now  presented,  proposes  33  dams, 
all  located  on  solid-rock  foundations,  with  an  average  length  of  709  feet,  a minimum 
length  of  550  feet,  a mean  height  of  24  feet,  and  a maximum  lift  of  22  feet,  making,  as 
compared  with  the  former  arrangement,  a decrease  of  5 in  the  number  of  dams,  or  13 
per  cent. ; an  increase  of  128  feet  in  mean  length,  or  22  per  cent. ; an  increase  of  233 
feet,  or  over  60  per  cent.,  in  minimum  length ; and  a decrease  of  3 feet  in  maximum  lift, 
without  material  change  in  the  average  height  above  foundations  of  the  dams.  The 
diminution  of  the  number  of  dams,  without  increase  of  height,  is  proposed  to  be 
obtained  by  a resort  to  sections  of  lateral  canal  around  some  of  the  greater  descents, 
and  by  the  exca-vation  of  channels  through  the  shoals  next  below  the  dams,  in  order 
to  utilize  the  natural  depths  of  water  found  at  their  feet. 

The  increase  of  mean  and  minimum  length  is  proposed  to  be  obtained  by  building 
the  dams  obliquely  to  the  thread  of  the  current  in  one  or  more  branches,  and  by  the 
location  of  the  locks  and  lateral  canals  as  far  into  the  hill-sides  and  away  from  the 
low-water  border  as  circumstances  will  permit.  This  latter  arrangement  affords  the 
greatest  possible  development  of  crest-line,  as  it  obtains  nearly  the  entire  distance 
between  the  level  contours  on  either  side  of  the  valley  corresponding  to  the  reference 
of  the  comb  of  the  dam.  It  evidently,  however,  requires  very  considerable  excava- 
tions to  form  approaches  to  the  locks,  and  in  some  cases  the  removal  of  projecting 
points  of  the  side  hills  above  and  below  the  dams,  to  permit  the  free  access  and  dis- 
charge of  flood-waters.  On  the  other  hand,  in  addition  to  the  increased  length  of  the 
dams,  it  partially  removes  the  locks  from  the  more  violent  assaults  of  the  floods,  and 
is  believed  to  afford  the  nearest  practical  approximation  to  compliance  with  the  sug- 
gestion that  the  locks  should  be  located  in  lateral  ravines,  entirely  removed  from  the 
river-bed,  for  the  reason  that  these  are  always  narrow,  rugged,  and  precipitous,  liable 
to  frequent  and  violent  floods  of  short  duration,  which  bring  down  masses  of  stone 
and  timber,  rendering  them,  if  anything,  more  dangerous  than  the  main  stream  to  the 
stability  and  security  of  the  works. 

Examinations  for  tunnels  were  made  across  all  the  principal  bends  of  the  river  that 
would  be  accessible  to  either  a canal  or  slack-water  improvement.  The  location  of 
the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Railroad  would  prevent  (with  any  reasonable  degree  of 
economy)  the  approach  to  any  possible  tunnel  occupying  the  same  side  of  the  river  as 
the  road,  and  consequently  no  examinations  were  made  on  that  bank,  except  at  the 
Stretcher’s  Neck  Tunnel. 

Tunnel-line  No.  1 passes  through  the  first  bend  above  Stretcher’s  Neck,  leaving  the 
river  above  Quinimont  Station  and  striking  it  again  immediately  opposite  the  entrance 


to  Stretcher’s  Neck  tunnel. 

The  distance  by  river  is 11, 600  feet 

And  by  tunnel 3,  600  feet 

Or,  tunnel-line  saves 8,  000  feet 

The  tunnel-line  will  cost  about $1,750,  000  00 

And  the  river-line  will  cost  about 108,  000  00 

Or,  cost  of  tunnel-line  will  exceed  line  around  by 1,642,000  00 

Tunnel  No.  2 is  through  Stretcher’s  Neck  bend. 

The  distance  by  river  is 19,  000  feet 

And  by  tunnel 2,  000  feet 

Or,  tunnel-line  saves 17,  000  feet 

The  tunnel  will  cost  about.. $1,0.37,000  00 

And  by  river  will  cost  about 570, 000  00 

Or,  tunnel-line  exceeds  in  cost  by 467, 000  00 


Tunnel  No.  3 is  about  5 miles  below  Stretcher’s  Neck,  and  cuts  off  Buffalo  Shoals. 


The  distance  by  river  is 14, 000  feet 

And  by  tunnel  is 4,  950  feet 

Or,  tunnel-line  saves 9, 050  feet 


732 


REPORT  OF  THE  CHIEF  OF  ENGINEERS. 


The  cost  by  tunnel  is  about $1,  230,  000 

And  by  river  is  about 237,000 

Or,  tunnel-line  costs  in  excess 993, 000 


Tunnel  No.  4 is  through  the  first  bend  below  Hawk’s  Nest,  and  is  the  first  one  located 
on  the  right  bank  of  the  river. 


The  distance  by  river  is 12,  000  feet 

And  by  tunnel-line. 6,  400  feet 

Or,  the  tunnel -line  saves 5, 600  feet 

The  cost  of  tunnel-line  is  about $1,  529,  000 

And  the  river-line  about 453,  800 


Or,  tunnel  cost  is  iu  excess  by 


.1, 075, 200 


Tunnel  No.  5 is  also  on  the  right  bank,  and  cuts  off  the  Blue  Hole  Bend.  The  line 
would,  at  lower  end,  strike  the  river  at  the  foot  of  Narrow  Falls,  above  darn  No.  32. 


The  distance  by  river  is 12,500  feet 

And  by  tunnel  is 7,  760  feet 

Or,  the  tunnel-line  saves  about 4, 740  feet 

The  cost  of  tunnel-line  is |2,  087,  500 

And  the  cost  by  river  is 427, 178 


Or,  the  tunnel-line  exceeds  in  cost  about 


1,  660,  322 


Tunnel-lines  Nos.  2 and  4 will  enable  one  dam  at  each  place  to  be  dispensed  with. 
The  others  save  nothing  in  this  respect.  All  the  tunnels  will  require  a guard-lock  in 
addition  to  the  same  number  of  lift-locks  as  the  lines  by  way  of  the  river. 

If  the  adoption  of  these  tunnel-lines  would  serve  in  any  conuderable  degree  to  raise 
the  standard  of  utility  of  the  slack- water  schema,  or,  iu  other  words,  if  their  use  would 
enable  the  whole  division  to  be  navigated  during  floods  of  gi’eater  volume  than  could 
be  done  without  tham,  their  construction  might  be  advisable  even  at  a greatty  in- 
creased first  cost.  But  this  would  manifestly  not  be  the  case,  for  the  reason  that  those 
portions  of  the  route  not  aftected  by  any  of  the  tunnels  possess  all  the  characteristics 
of  the  portions  avoided  by  them. 

The  river  above  tunnel  No.  1 presents  no  greater  facilities  for  the  operation  of  a 
slack  navigation  than  is  fouiifl  iu  the  bend  cut  off  bj^  the  tunnel,  and  the  same  is  true 
of  the  portions  between  Nos.  2 and  3 and  Nos.  4 and  5.  Those  portions  of  the  river 
avoided  by  lines  Nos.  4 and  5 undoubtedly  offer  very  formidable  obstacles  to  the  con- 
struction and  operation  of  any  scheme  of  navigation  improvement,  and  here,  if  any- 
where, the  resort  to  tunneling  might  be  true  economy.  The  ihver  at  these  places  has, 
for  several  miles,  an  average  fall  of  26  feet  per  mile,  one  of  the  miles,  avoided  by  tun- 
]iel-line  No.  5,  having  a fall  of  about  30  feet.  Yet  even  here  the  intermediate  portions 
not  aflected  by  the  tunnels  are  equally  unfavorable  with  those  avoided,  and  for  the 

gorge,”  as  elsewhere,  the  only  real  gain  possible  by  means  of  tunnels  isthat  of  dis- 
tance or  time. 

Assuming  20  minutes  as  the  time  required  to  pass  through  one  of  these  large  locks, 
and  the  average  rate  of  travel  by  boats  iu  the  pools  as  3 miles  an  hour,  tlie  extra 
guard-lock  at  each  tunnel  will  consume  an  amount  of  time  e(i[ual  to  1 mile  of  d.stance  . 
If  we  further  assume,  as  is  reasonable,  that  the  rate  of  travel  through  the  tunnels  and 
approaches  will  be  only  1^  miles  per  hour,  there  will  result  the  folio wm^  comparison 
of  times  by  the  several  tunnels  and  by  the  river,  ex«5ladiag  lockages  common  to  both 
routes: 

Minutes. 


Through  tunnel  No.  1 

By  river 

Through  tunnel  No.  2 

By  river 

Through  tunnel  No.  3 

By  river 

Through  tunnel  No.  4 

By  river 

Through  tunnel  No^5 
By  river 


47 

44 

35 

72 

57 

53 

51 

37 

60 

37 


APPENDIX  V. 


733 


So  thatj  even  allowing  a much  less  time  for  lockage  and  a greater  rate  of  speed 
through  tunnels  and  approaches  than  above,  the  fact  remains  that  there  would  be  no 
gain  in  time  by  the  use  of  any  of  the  tunnels  except  No.  2,  (through  Stretcher’s  Neck.) 
For  these  reasons,  though  estimates  of  cost  are  submitted  for  tunnels,  only  that  through 
Stretcher’s  Neck  is  eqabrased  in  the  main  estimate  showing  the  total  cost  of  the  slack- 
water  scheme. 

The  ultimate  utility  of  the  whole  project  is  evidently  governed  by  that  of  its  worst 
portion,  which  is  the  gorge  between  Sewell  and  Narrow  Falls,  and  the  utility  of  this 
section  evidently  depends  upon  the  number  of  days  during  which  navigation  would 
be  suspended  by  reason  of  floods  rendering  the  pools  impassable. 

The  data  necessary  to  a very  positive  determination  of  this  question  are  not  to  bo 
had;  yet  sufficient  is  known  to  enable  an  approximate  solution  to  be  made,  which  will 
be  satisfactory  just  in  proportion  to  the  certainty  that  the  assumptions  are  all  made 
against,  rather  than  in  favor  of,  the  slack-water  navigation.  Under  certain  assump- 
tions, which  are  in  harmony  with  the  facts,  in  so  far  as  known,  a table  (hereto  ap- 
pended) has  been  prepared,  showing  the  discharges  and  velocities  corresponding  to 
every  foot  in  depth,  from  1 foot  to  14  feet,  on  the  comb  of  dams  similar  to  those  pro- 
posed for  this  part  of  the  work.  Assuming  that  a velocity  of  four  miles  an  hour  at  the 
upper  ends  of  the  pools  will  represent  the  limit  against  which  such  boats  as  would 
probably  be  used  on  this  improvement  could  be  propelled,  it  will  be  found  by  reference 
to  the  table  that,  for  the  duration  of  any  flood  discharge  exceeding  37,000  cubic  feet 
per  second,  navigation  by  slack-water  would  be  entirely  suspended  throughout  the 
gorge. 

The  only  definite  information  on  record  as  to  the  height  and  duration  of  floods  is 
confined  to  observations  made  by  Mr.  E.  M.  Tutwiler,  civd  engineer,  (at  the  time  in 
the  service  of  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Eailroad  Company,)  who  has  kindly  furnished 
a profile  of  his  results,  which  is  appended  l|ereto. 

These  observations  were  made  near  Buffalo  Shoals,  about  5 miles  below  Stretcher’s 
Neck,  and  extend  over  a period  of  about  nine  months,  from  June  12,  1872,  to  March  17, 
1873.  The  season  appears  to  have  been  prolific  in  frOishets,  no  less  than  ten  being 
noted  exceeding  6 feet  in  height  above  low  water.  The  extreme  range  was  19  feet 
above  this  plane,  and  for  247  days  out  of  278  days,  or  about  six-sevenths  of  the  time, 
the  river  was  at  various  stages  above  low  water. 

If  these  observations  had  included  measurements  of  slope  or  velocity,  or  had  similar 
ones  been  made  above  and  below,  so  that  the  volume  of  discharge  at  the  various 
heights  could  have  been  determined,  the  question  would  have  at  once  been  settled  for 
all  similar  years.  As  this  was  not  done,  we  cark  only  approximate  a solution,  based 
upon  assumptions  always  certainly  against  the  slack-water. 

The  flood  of  1861  (according  to  marks  given  by  persons  who  resided  in  the  vicinity 
at  that  time)  attained  at  this  point  a height  of  about  22  fbet,  and  according  to  the  es- 
timates hitherto  used,  based  upon  its  depth  on  the  crest  of  Richmond’s  Falls,  its  vol- 
ume was  about  90,000  cubic  feet  per  second. 

If  we  assume  that  at  one-half  the  height  the  volume  of  discharge  would  be  , 
(which  is  certainly  a liberal  allowance,)  it  will  result  that  during  the  continuance  of 
floods  exceeding  11  feet  in  height  at  this  place  the  navigation  by  slack- water  'would 
be  suspended  throughout  the  gorge. 

An  examination  of  the  records  of  Mr.  Tufcwiler’s  observations  shows  that  during  the 
nine  months  covered  by  them  there  were  four  days  in  January  and  five  and  one-half 
days  in  February,  or  nine  and  one-half  days  in  all,  during  which  this  suspension  of 
navigation  would  have  obtained  in  1872  and  1873. 

Whether  this  season  was  a fair  average  as  to  high  waters  we  cannot  tell  with  cer- 
tainty, owing  to  the  absence  of  records,  but  it  certainly  could  not  be  considered  a 
low-v^ater  season. 

MECHANICAL  STRUCTURES. 

Locks. — The  drawings  herewith  subraftted  show  in  detail  the  type  of  locks,  gates, 
valves,  &c.,  proposed  to  be  used  as  applied  to  the  mean  or  average  lift  of  15  feet.  In 
accordance  with  the  resolution  of  adopting  for  the  locks  of  the  canal  division  a width 
of  24  feet,  the  plans  for  the  slack-water  locks  have  been  made  250  feet  by  48  feet  in 
the  chamber,  instead  of  240  feet  by  40  feet  as  hitherto  proposed  and  estimated  for. 
The  details  of  gates,  valves,  &c.,  are  of  course  only  intended  as  studies,  and  it  is  hardly 
to  be  doubted  but  that  in  the  course  of  construction  many  improvements  and  econo- 
mies can  and  will  be  made.  The  locks  throughout  are  proposed  to  be  protected 
against  submergence  by  iloods  of  100,000  cubic  feet  per  second,  or  10  per  cent,  greater 
than  that  of  1861.  The  walls  and  gates  are  proposed  to  bo  arranged  to  permit  the  use 
of  the  locks  when  the  river  is  at  the  maximum  navigable  height  in  the  pools.  Owing 
to  the  fact  that  the  locks  are  located  as  far  as  possible  from  the  water’s  edge,  guard- 
banks  are  short  and  unimportant,  the  wing-walls  frequently  being  sufficient.  It  is 
proposed  to  found  all  locks  on  solid  rock,  and  in  preparing  the  estimates  its  position 
was  determined,  where  concealed  from  view,  by  reference  to  its  exposure  in  the  river- 


734 


REPORT  OF  THE  CHIEF  OF  ENGINEERS. 


bed  and  in  the  adjacent  hill-sides.  The  drawings  show  the  upper  gates  resting  on 
breast- walls ; this  is  proposed  to  be  done  only  when  the  excavation  is  in  solid  rock,  or 
in  other  special  cases;  generally,  the  upper  and  lower  gates  will  have  the  same  height, 
in  order  to  prevent  a water-fall  at  the  head  of  the  chamber  when  using  the  valves  in 
the  gates  to  fill  the  lock. 

The  lock-flooring  of  timber  and  concrete,  shown  and  estimated  for  in  each  lock,  is 
only  proposed  to  be  used  where  the  rock  is  seamed  or  imperfect,  a matter  only  to  be 
determined  by  actual  experience. 

It  is  proposed  to  build  the  chamber-walls  of  rubble-masonry,  pointed  off”  on  the 
interior,  and  the  head  and  tail  walls  of  random-ranged  masoury,  dressed  on  exposed 
faces. 

The  walls  have  been  designed  to  resist  the  pressure  of  the  water  when  at  flood- 
height,  supposing  the  chamber  filled  with  water  to  the  lower  level. 

The  European  practice  appears  to  be  to  consider  the  lock-chamber  empty  and  the 
exterior  water  at  flood-height;  but  as  this  method  would  greatly  increase  the  volume 
and  cost  of  masonry,  and  could  only  be  demanded  by  the  possible  necessity  of  empty- 
ing and  repairing  the  lock-chambers  during  great  floods,  it  has  been  thought  an  unne- 
cessary expense  for  this  project,  as  the  emergency,  should  it  arise,  could  be  met  by 
bracing  the  walls  from  the  interior. 

The  details  of  the  wrought-iron  gates  are  adapted  to  this  project,  mainly  from  the 
drawings  of  a lock-gate  at  Clarendon,  (France,)  as  illustrated  by  De  Lagrene,  in  his 
“ Cours  de  Navigation  Interieure.” 

It  is  expected  to  fill  and  empty  the  locks  by  means  of  iron  pipes  in  the  side-walls, 
passing  behind  the  hollow  quoins,  as  well  as  by  valves  in  the  gates.  It  is  estimated 
to  fill  a 15-foot  lift-lock  by  the  pipes  alone  in  12  minutes. 

A method  of  maneuvering  large  lock-gates  with  certainty  and  celerity  appears  to  be, 
as  yet,  undiscovered.  The  arrangements  commonly  in  use  are  beams,  or  spars,  for  push- 
ing shut  or  pulling  open  the  gates,  chains  working  over  drums  on  the  side-wa  Is,  twn 
chains  being  required  for  each  leaf,  a toothed  iron  arc  secured  to  upper  part  of  gate  at 
about  one-quarter  the  width  of  the  leaf  from  the  “ heel-post,”  and  working  into  a cor- 
responding arc  imbedded  in  the  side-wall,  the  arrangement  being  worked  by  crank  and 
pinions  ; and  finally,  by  a system  of  gearing  worked  from  the  top  of  the  gate,  actuating 
a wheel  or  roller  traveling  on  a track  on  the  floor  of  the  gate-recess. 

A necessary  condition  to  the  successful  working  of  any  of  these  plans  requires  that 
the  roller-track  near  the  outer  end  of  the  gate  (which  is  common  to  all  large  lock-gate 
plans  as  a point  of  support,  &c.)  should  remain  unobstructed  by  deposits  of  sediment 
or  debris  of  any  kind.  If  this  condition  is  maintained  it  would  seem  that  the  system  of 
moving  the  gate  by  machinery  attached  to  the  outer  end,  and  worked  from  the  top  of 
the  gate  itself,  ought  to  be  the  more  compact  and  etfective  mechanical  arrangement  for 
effecting  the  desired  object. 

The  drawings  show  this  method  of  working,  as  well  as  by  a simple  roller  to  be  moved 
by  either  chains  or  booms.  The  booms  are  cumbersome  and  greatly  in  the  way  in  a 
narrow  valley  like  that  of  New  River.  The  chains  interfere  with  close  joints  of  gate 
and  miter  sill,  and  are  liable  at  any  time  to  be  effectually  blocked  by  small  chips  or 
stones. 

The  short  iron  arc  requires  immense  power  to  compensate  for  its  want  of  leverage, 
and  a long  one  would  break  of  its  own  weight. 

New  River  is  not  a sediment-bearing  stream,  and  in  it,  if  anywhere,  it  may  be  ex- 
pected that  a track  on  the  lock-floor  will  remain  unobstructed. 

The  toothed  arc  on  the  floor  in  this  project  is,  for  greater  security,  proposed  to  be 
raised  above  the  floor  on  cast-iron  brackets. 

Dams. — The  dams  are  jy’oposed  to  be  built  of  rubble-masonfy,  pointed  off  on  exposed 
faces  with  a heavy  stone  coping,  covered  with  timber.  The  estimates  contemplate 
giving  them  a section  of  not  less  width  than  10  feet,  top  or  bottom,  with  a general 
thickness  at  bottom  of  about  -fn-  the  height.  The  abutments  are  proposed  to  be  of 
same  character  of  work  and  material  as  the  dams.  The  estimates  also  include  for  each 
dam  the  excavation  of  a trench  2 feet  deep  over  the  whole  area  of  the  foundation,  and 
its  filling  with  concrete;  this,  of  course,  will  only  be  needed  where  the  rock  is  seamed 
or  imperfect.  Five  of  the  dams  are  located  on  rock  of  a slaty  structure  ; the  remainder 
on  compact  sandstone. 

This  division  comprises  6 guard-locks  and  .51  lift-locks,  of  an  average  lift  of  14^  feet, 
and  33  dams  having  a mean  length  of  709^  feet  and  a minimum  length  of  550  feet. 

SYNOPSIS  OF  PROJECT  AS  NOW  PRESENTED. 

The  locks  are  proposed  to  be  made  250  feet  by  48  feet  in  the  chambers  ; canal  prisms, 
where  possible,  102  feet  wide  at  water-line,  and  never  less  than  60  feet  for  very  short 
distances. 

Tunnels  are  proposed  to  be  made  54  feet  wide  at  water-surface,  9 feet  deep  below  it, 
and  33  feet  high  above  it. 


APPENDIX  V. 


735 


Lock  walls  and  gates  are  proposed  to  be  arranged  to  permit  navigation  with  7^  feet 
on  a dam,  600  feet  long,  and  are  arranged  to  exclude  floods  of  100,000  cubic  feet  per 
second. 

Commencing  at  lock  in  dam  No.  32  of  Greenbrier  division,  on  the  right  bank  of  the 
Greenbrier,  (to  avoid  flooding  the  Hinton  bottoms,  as  would  have  been  done  by  dam 
No.  1 of  the  survey  of  1872,)  a canal  is  traced  6,850  feet  through  the  Hinton  bottoms 
to  lock  No.  1,  of  12  feet  lift;  thence  the  canal  is  continued  6,275  feet,  partly  in  the  river 
and  partly  over  low  points  of  bottom-land,  to  station  138,  below  the  town  of  Hinton, 
where  the  line  enters  a pool  2,700  feet  above  dam  No.  1. 

Dam  No.  1,  14  feet  high  and  1,010  feet  long,  is  just  above  Tug  Shoals;  foundation  on 
sandstone.  Lock  No  3,  which  is  a guard-lock,  is  on  left  bank,  and  gives  entrance  to 
a canal  around  the  shoals,  1,900  feet  long,  to  locks  Nos.  4 and  5,  of  10  and  13  feet  life 
respectively,  which  lock  into  the  pool  from  dam  No.  2. 

Dam  No.  2,  11  feet  high  and  1,000  feet  long,  is  at  head  of  Brooks’s  Falls,  9,500  feet 
below  lock  No.  5;  foundation,  sandstone.  Lock  No.  6,  of  11  feet  lift,  is  located  on  the 
lefn  bank,  and  locks  into  the  pool  formed  by  dam  No.  3. 

Dam  No.  3,  16  feet  high  and  960  feet  long,  in  two  branches,  is  at  Bragg’s  Island, 
6,300  feet  below  lock  No.  6;  foundation  on  sandstone.  Lock  No.  7,  of  9 feet  lift,  is  on 
the  right  bank,  and  locks  into  pool  formed  by  dam  No.  4. 

Dam  No.  4,  12  feet  high  and  1,290  feet  long,  is  located  at  Richmond’s  Falls,  12,100 
feet  below  lock  No.  7 ; tlie  foundation  is  on  hard  conglomerate,  with  slaty  lamina,  to 
avoid  the  long  section  of  canal  on  the  left  bank,  as  proposed  at  this  place  by  Mr.  Lor- 
raine. It  is  now  proposed  to  locate  the  locks  (with  intermediate  basins)  close  to  the 
right  bank,  cutting  directly  through  the  crest  of  the  falls,  and  utilizing  the  deep  pool 
above  the  debouche  of  Mr.  Lorraine’s  canal.  Lock  No.  8,  of  13  feet  lift,  is  on  the  right 
bank  at  the  dam.  Lock  No.  9,  of  14  feet  lift,  is  300  feet  below  No.  8,  and  connected 
with  it  by  a canal  of  that  length.  Lock  No.  10,  of  13  feet  lift,  locks  into  the  pool 
formed  by  dam  No.  5 ; it  is  connected  with  No.  9 by  a basin  .350  feet  long. 

Dam  No.  5,  16  feet  high  and  770  feet  long,  is  located  12,000  feet  below  lock  No.  10 ; 
foundation,  sandstone.  Lock  No.  11,  of  12  feet  lift,  is  on  the  left  bank,  and  locks  into 
X)ool  formed  by  dam  No.  6. 

Dam  No.  6,  15  feet  high  and  760  feet  long,  is  located  at  head  of  Meadow  Creek  Bot- 
tom, 7,700  feet  below  lock  No.  11;  foundation,  sandstone.  Lock  No.  12,  on  the  right 
bank,  is  a guard-lock  to  enter  a canal  2,100  feet  long  through  the  Meadow  Creek  Bot- 
tom. Lock  No.  13,  of  10  feet  lift,  is  at  lower  end  of  canal,  and  locks  into  the  pool 
formed  by  dam  No.  7. 

Dam  No.  7,  16  feet  high  and  600  feet  long,  is  located  6,200  feet  below  lock  No,  13  ; 
foundation  of  slaty  structure  overlaying  sandstone.  Lock  No.  14,  of  15  feet  lift,  is  on 
the  left  bank ; connects  by  a cut  600  feet  long  with  the  pool  formed  by  dam  No.  8. 

Dayn  No.  8,  17  feet  high  and  1,640  feet  long,  is  10,100  feet  below  lock  No.  14;  founda- 
tion, sandstone.  Lock  No.  15,  of  15  feet  life,  is  on  the  left  bank,  and  locks  into  pool 
formed  by  dam  No.  9. 

Dam  No.  9,  20  feet  high  and  820  feet  long,  is  located  at  and  above  mouth  of  Glade 
Creek,  12,300  feet  below  lock  No.  15 ; foundation  in  firm  slate.  Lock  No.  16,  of  12  feet 
lift,  is  on  right  bank,  and  connects  with  pool  from  dam  No.  10. 

Dam  No.  10,  20  feet  high  and  600  feet  long,  is  7,800  feet  below  lock  No.  16;  founda- 
tion of  sandstone  and  shale  intermixed.  Lock  No.  17,  of  13  feet  lift,  is  on  the  rigUt 
bank,  and  connects  with  pool  from  dam  No.  11. 

Datyi  No.  11,  22  feet  high  and  640  feet  long,  is  8,100  feet  below  lock  No.  17,  at  the 
head  of  low  bottom  above  Quinimout;  foundation  on  hard  shale.  Lock  No.  18,  of  10 
feet  lift,  is  on  right  bank,  and  connects  with  a canal  through  low  ground,  1,100  feet 
long,  to  lock  No.  19  of  10  feet  lift,  which  connects  with  pool  from  dam  No.  12,  giviug 
entrance  to  Stretcher’s  Neck  Tunnel,  11,400  feet  below  dam  No.  12. 

Dam  No.  12,  27  feet  high  and  630  feet  long,  is  located  below  Stretcher’s  Neck  Tunnel, 
on  a sandstone  foundation.  Its  function  being  simply  to  back  the  water  up  to  tunnel- 
entrance,  no  lock  is  provided  for  it ; foundation,  sandstone.  Lock  No.  20  is  a guard- 
lock,  located  on  the  right  bank,  opening  into  approach-basin  to  Stretcher’s  Neck. 
Stretcher’s  Neck  Tunnel  is  1,320  feet  between  portals,  and  is  followed  by  lock  No.  21, 
of  19  feet  lift,  locking  into  a basin  310  feet  long.  Lock  No,  22,  of  18  feet  lift,  is  at 
lower  end  of  basin,  and  is  immediately  followed  by  lock  No.  23,  of  18  feet  lift,  which 
connects  with  the  pool  from  dam  No.  13. 

Dayyi  No.  13,  24  feet  high  and  600  feet  long,  is  located  6,000  feet  below  lock  No.  23,  on 
firm  red  shale.  Lock  No.  24,  of  10  feet  lift,  is  on  the  right  bank  and  connects  with 
canal  550  feet  long  to  lock  No.  25,  of  10  feet  lift,  connecting  with  pool  from  dam  No.  14. 

Dam  No.  14,  12  feet  high  and  6'jO  feet  long,  is  located  6,950  feet  below  lock  No.  25,  on 
hard  red  sands  one.  Lock  No.  26,  on  the  right  bank,  is  a guard-lock,  giving  entrance 
to  a canal  1,000  feet  long,  extending  to  lock  No.  27,  of  12  feet  lift,  which  connects  with 
pool  from  dam  No.  15. 

Dam  No.  15,  20  feet  high  and  600  feet  long,  is  located  11,100  feet  below  lock  No.  27, 


REPORT  OF  THE  CHIEF  OF  ENGINEERS. 


73  G 


just  above  Buffalo  Shoals,  on  foundation  of  a slaty  character,  overlying  sandstone. 
Lock  No.  28,  of  13  feet  lift,  on  the  left  bank,  is  at  the  lower  end  of  a canal  500  feet 
long,  arranged  to  dispense  with  a guard-lock,  and  connect  with  pool  from  dam  No.  16. 

Dam  No.  16,  18  feet  high  and  640  feet  long,  is  located  6,500  feet  below  lock  No.  28,  on 
foundation  of  sandstone.  Lock  No.  29,  of  15  feet  lift,  is  on  the  right  bank,  and  con- 
nects with  the  pool  for  dam  No.  17  by  a cut  600  feet  long. 

Dam  No.  17,  31  feet  high  and  600  feet  long,  is  located  10,200  feet  below  lock  No.  29;  a 
foundation  of  sandstone,  alternating  with  hard  slate.  Lock  No.  30,  of  20  feet  lift,  on 
the  left  bank,  connects  with  pool  from  dam  No.  18  by  a cut  1,500  feet  long. 

Dam  No.  18,  30  feet  high  and  620  feet  long,  is  located  13,500  feet  below  lock  No.  30, 
near-  Arbuckle  Creek;  foundation,  sandstone.  Lock  No.  31,  of  22  feet  lift,  is  on  the 
right  bank,  and  connects  with  pool  from  dam  No.  19. 

Dam  No.  19, 21  feet  high  and  770  feet  long,  is  located  16,700  feet  below  lock  No.  31,  on 
sandstone  foundation.  Lock  No.  32,  of  14  feet  lift,  is  on  the  left  bank,  and  connects 
with  a canal  2,500  feet  long,  extending  to  lock  No.  33,  of  14  feet  lift,  which  connects 
with  the  pool  for  dam  No.  20. 

Dam  No.  20,  27  feet  high  and  690  feet  long,  is  located  9,000  feet  below  lock  No.  23, 
about  one-half  mile  above  Sewell,  on  sandstone.  Lock  No.  34,  of  22  Let  lift,  is  on  the 
right  bank,  and  connects  wffth  pool  from  dam  No.  21  by  a cut  1,000  feet  long. 

Datn  No.  21,  31  feet  high  and  672  feet  long,  is  located  12,800  feet  below  lock  No.  34,  on 
sandstone  foundation.  Lock  No.  35,  on  the  left  bank,  is  a guard-lock,  connecting  with 
a canal  850  feet  long,  extending  to  lock  No.  36,  of  18  feet  lift,  which  also  connects  with 
a canal  600  feet  long,  extending  to  lock  No.  37,  of  18  feet  lift,  which  connects  with  pool 
from  dam  No.  22. 

Dam  No.  22,  42  feet  high  and  630  feet  long,  is  located  4,900  feet  below  lock  No.  37,  on 
hard  slate  foundation.  Lock  No.  38,  on  the  left  bank,  is  a guard-lock,  having  an  ap- 
proach-cut 700  feet  long  above  it,  and  connecting  at  lower  end  with  a canal  500  feet 
long,  extending  to  lock  No.  39,  of  17  feet  lift,  and  lock  No.  40,  of  15  feet  lift,  which  con- 
nects with  pool  from  dam  No.  23. 

Dam  No.  23, -23  feet  high  and  550  feet  long,  is  located  3,700  feet  below  locks  Nos.  39 
and  40,  on  sandstone  foundation.  Lock  No.  41,  of  14  feet  lift,  is  on  the  right  bank,  and 
connects  with  pool  from  dam  No.  24. 

Dam  No.  24,  34  feet  high  and  600  feet  long,  is  located  6,900  feet  below  lock  No.  41,  on 
sandstone  foundation.  Lock  No.  42,  of  19  feet  lift,  is  on  the  right  bank,  and  connects 
with  a canal  900  feet  long,  extending  to  lock  No.  43,  of  19  feet  lift,  which  connects  with 
pool  from  dam  No.  25. 

Dam  No.  25,  29  feet  high  and  600  feet  long,  is  located  10,300  feet  below  lock  No.  43  ; 
foundation,  sandstone,  overlaid  in  places  with  hard  slate.  Lock  No.  44,  of  20  feet  lift, 
is  on  the  right  bank,  and  connects  with  pool  from  dam  No.  26. 

Dam  No.  26,  35  feet  high  and  650  feet  long,  is  located  7,800  feet  below  lock  No.  44  ; 
foundation,  sandstone.  Lock  No.  45,  of  19  feet  lift,  is  on  the  right  bank,  and  connects 
with  the  pool  from  dam  No.  27. 

Dam  No.  27,  16  feet  high  and  600  feet  long,  is  located  5,200  feet  below  lock  No.  45, 
one-half  mile  above  Hawk’s  Nest ; sandstone  foundation.  Lock  No.  46,  of  19  feet  lift, 
is  on  the  right  bank,  and  connects  with  pool  from  dam  No.  28. 

Dam  No.  28,  26  feet  high  and  600  feet  long,  is  located  10,400  feet  below  lock  No.  47  ; 
foundation  on  sandstone  or  hard  conglomerate.  Lock  No.  48,  of  13  feet  lift,  is  on  the 
right  bank,  and  connects  with  a canal  1,000  feet  long,  extending  to  lock  No.  49,  of  13 
feet  lift,  which  connects  with  the  pool  from  dam  No.  29. 

Dam  No.  29,  32  feet  high  and  600  feet  long,  is  located  5,600  feet  below  lock  No.  49,  be- 
low Cotton  Hill  Station ; foundation,  hard  sandstone  or  conglomerate.  Lock  No.  50, 
of  20  feet  lift,  is  on  the  left  bank,  and  connects  with  the  pool  from  dam  No.  30. 

Dam  No.  30,  36  feet  high  and  660  feet  long,  is  located  5,000  feet  below  lock  No.  50,  on 
sandstone  foundation.  Lock  No.  52,  of  13  feet  lift,  which  connects  with  the  pool  from 
dam  No.  31. 

Dam  No.  31,  39  feet  high  and  600  feet  long,  is  located  4,800  feet  below  lock  No.  52, 
just  above  the  Blue  Hole,  on  sandstone  foundation.  Locks  Nos.  53  and  54,  of  15  and 
14  feet  lifts,  respectively,  are  on  the  right  bank,  and  connect  with  the  pool  from  dam 
No.  32. 

Dam  No.  32,  30  feet  high  and  800  feet  long,  is  located  at  foot  of  Narrow  Falls,  on 
sandstone  or  conglomerate  foundation,  10,000  feet  below  lock  No.  54.  Lock  No.  55,  of 
21  feet  lift,  is  on  the  left  bank,  and  connects  with  the  pool  from  dam  No.  33.  The  ap- 
proach to  and  pit  for  this  lock  are  partially  in  solid-rock  excavations. 

Dam  No.  33,  13  feet  high  and  1,400  feet  long,  is  located  just  above  the  crest  of  Ka- 
nawha E'alls,  10,200  feet  below  lock  No  55,  on  foundation  of  sandstone  conglomerate. 
Lock  No.  56,  of  15  feet  lift,  is  on  the  left  bank,  and  connects  with  a basin  250  feet  long, 
extending  to  lock  No.  57,  of  15  feet  lift,  which  connects  wdth  the  pool  below  in  the 
Kanawha  River. 


APPENDIX  V.  737 

The  total  cost  of  the  slack-water  scheme,  as  shown  by  the  appended  estimates,  in 
detail,  will  be — 

With  tunnel  No.  2,  Stretcher’s  Neck $11,427,010 

With  tunnel  2,  4,  and  5 1 14;  102,017 

And  without  any  tunnels,  about 11,000,000 


The  estimate  No.  1,  using  only  Stretcher’s  Neck  tunnel,  will  probably  be  found  the 
better  line,  as  combining  economy  of  time  and  cost. 

RECONNAISSANCE  OUTSIDE  OF  THE  VALLEY  OF  NEW  RIVER  FOR  TUNNEL-LINES,  ETC. 

Examinations  were  made  as  below  for  determining  the  practicability  of  avoiding 
some  portions  of  the  valley  of  New  River  by  a resort  to  tunnels.  Instrumental  sur- 
veys were  made  by  Big  Loup  and  Meadow  Creek,  the  differences  by  elevation  in  other 
cases  being  determined  by  aneroid  barometers,  (Casella’s.) 

No.  1.  From  near  Alderson’s  Ferry,  on  the  Greenbrier,  by  way  of  Griffith’s  and  Lick 
Creeks,  to  New  River. 

No.  2.  From  the  same  point  on  the  Greenbrier,  by  way  of  Little  Meadow  Creek,  to 
New  River. 

No.  8.  From  mouth  of  Piney  Creek,  (Stretcher’s  Neck,)  by  way  of  Paint  Creek,  to 
Kanawha. 

No.  4.  From  mouth  of  Piney  Creek  to  Clear  Fork  of  Coal  River,  and  down  Coal 
River  to  the  Kanawha. 

No.  5.  From  mouth  of  Arbuckle  Creek  to  Big  Loup  Creek,  and  down  that  to  the 
Kanawha. 

No.  6.  From  Arbuckle  Creek  to  Paint  Creek,  and  down  that  to  the  Kanawha. 

As  none  of  these  lines  had  any  source  of  water-supply  for  a summit-level,  tunnels 
were  a necessity. 

Line  No.  1 would  require  a tunnel  from  6 to  8 miles  long. 

Line  No.  2,  a tunnel  Ilf  miles  long. 

Line  No.  3,  a tunnel  13f  miles  long. 

Line  No.  4,  a tunnel  17  miles  long. 

Line  No.  5,  a tunnel  11  miles  long. 

Line  No.  fi,  a tunnel  12  miles  long. 

These  results  were  considered  prohibitory,  and  further  instrumental  investigations 
were  thought  unnecessary.  It  is  possible  that  lines  Nos.  1 and  2 could  be  supplied 
with  water  by  a reservoir  on  the  site  of  that  proposed  by  Mr.  Ellet,  on  Meadow  River, 
but  at  a very  considerable  increase  of  cost  over  the  river-line,  with  very  doubtful  re- 
sults as  to  economy  of  time. 

Though  the  exhibit  appears  so  unfavorable  for  any  attempt  to  break  away  from  the 
valley  of  New  River  with  a water-line,  I am  inclined  to  the  belief  that  the  effort  to 
accomplish  the  same  object  by  a line  of  railway  would  show  a more  favorable  result, 
especially  for  a narrow-gauge  line. 

The  whole  region  of  country  about  the  head  of  Coal  River  and  Loup  and  Paint  Creeks, 
besides  being  a rich  agricultural  country  in  the  valleys,  has  in  iis  mountain-ranges 
large  deposits  of  cannel  and  other  coals  which  the  configuration  of  the  country  will 
permit  to  be  put  cheaply  and  quickly  in  communication  with  the  Kanawha  River  by 
means  of  tram-roads  similar  to  those  recently  introduced  into  the  mining  regions  of 
Spain,  and  advocated  in  Van  Nostrand’s  Magazine,  by  Mlf  Herman  Haupt,  civil  en- 
gineer. 

None  of  these  streams,  except  Coal  River,  offer  any  possible  facilities  for  water-trans- 
portation ; the  latter  stream  is  now  “ slack-watered”  to  Peytona,  and  this  work  prob- 
ably represents  the  ultimate  capacity  of  the  district  in  that  respect. 

In  connection  with  the  slack-water  project,  there  is  herewith  submitted  the  report 
and  estimates  of  Mr.  J.  M.  Harris,  superintendent  James  River  and  Kanawha  Canal 
Company,  to  whom  I am  indebted  for  much  valuable  assistance  during  the  progress  of 
the  surveys. 

CANAL-SURVEY. 

In  order  that  the  data  procured  in  the  field  might  enable  any  combination  of  canal 
and  slack-water  to  be  made  hereafter,  that  may  be  considered  desirable,  independent 
of  the  views  of  those  engaged  in  the  field,  two  entirely  distinct  surveys  were  carried 
on,  one  all  “ slack-water,”  the  other  all  “canal.”  For  the  canal  an  experimental  line 
with  cross-sections  of  the  surface  at  every  100  feet  was  traced  from  the  last  dam  of  the 
Greenbrier  division  above  Hinton  to  the  pool  above  Kanawha  Falls,  a distance  of 
about  60  miles. 

The  line  was  not  prolonged  beyond  this  point,  for  the  reason  that  the  New  River  for 
the  2 miles  below  to  Kanawha  Falls  offers  equal  facilities  for  slack-water  navigation 

47  E 


738 


REPOUT  OF  THE  CHIEF  OF  EEGINEERS. 


with  the  Kauawha  below  the  falls,  for  which  a modified  form  of  that  method  of  improve- 
ment has  been  definitely  adopted.  The  location  of  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Railroad 
on  the  ri^ht  bank  of  the  river  from  Hinton  to  Hawk’s  Nest,  and  on  the  left  bank  below 
that  point  to  the  falls,  renders  it  generally  a matter  of  necessity  that  a lateral  canal 
should  occupy  the  opposite  bank  of  the  river,  as  it  is  in  only  one  or  two  places,  and 
for  short  distances,  that  there  is  sufficient  space  between  tUe  road  and  the  river  for  a 
canal  even  of  much  smaller  section  than  fhat  considered  requisite  for  this  line. 

As  traced  and  marked  in  the  Held,  the  line  starts  from  the  last  dam  on  the  Green- 
brier, follows  the  right  bank  through  the  Hinton  bottoms  over  the  same  route  de- 
scribed for  the  “slack-water,”  crosses  the  river  at  the  same  j)oint,  and  thence  follows 
the  left  bank  miles,  where  it  crosses  the  upper  end  of  Meadow  Creek  bottoms  on  the 
right  bank;  passing  through  these  bottoms  for  about  3 miles,  it  recrosses  the  river  to 
the  left  bank,  which  it  follows  13  miles  to  the  upper  side  of  Stretcher’s  Neck.  Here 
the  line  crosses  to  the  right  bank,  passes  through  the  bend  by  means  of  a tunnel,  and 
immediately  recrosses  to  the  left  bank,  which  it  follows  29  miles  to  a point  just  below 
the  Hawk’s  Nest,  where  it  crosses  to  the  right  bank,  and  occupies  that  side  to  the  ter- 
minus below  Narrow  Falls,  (about  2 miles  above  Kanawha  Falls.) 

From  this  brief  description  it  will  be  seen  that,  as  projected  and  traced  in  the  field, 
the  line  crosses  the  river  six  times,  viz,  at  Hinton  Meadow  Creek  twice.  Stretcher’s 
Neck  twice,  and  below  Plawk’s  Nest.  Of  these,  the  crossing  at  Hinton  is  justified  by 
the  more  favorable  nature  of  the  ground  on  the  left  bank,  the  railroad  occupying  the 
right  bank ; the  crossings  at  Meadow  Creek  were  made  with  a view  of  utilizing  the 
favorable  ground  extending  along  the  right  bank  for  several  miles  between  the  railroad 
and  the  river,  but  after-smdy  would  indicate  that  for  a really  independent  canal  this  line 
would  be  inadmissible,  owing  to  the  cost  of  aqueducts  at  the  upper  and  lower  crossings. 

The  canal-line,  adhering  to  the  left  bank,  between  the  crossing-points,  would  cost 
$768,300,  and  between  the  same  points,  by  crossing,  &c.,  as  in  the  field,  $800,335.25; 
so  that  without  aqueducts,  and  with  crossings  in  pools,  nothing  is  gained  by  the 
crossing,  and  it  is  suggested  that  this  crossing  be  abandoned.  The  crossings  at  Stretch- 
er’s Neck  would  probably  have  to  be  made,  even  though  the  line  were  continued  around 
the  bend,  owing  to  the  topographical  features  of  the  valley,  and,  as  by  a tunnel  about 
1,300  feet  long  a saving  of  distance  of  3 miles  is  effected,  the  propriety  of  adhering 
to  this  arrangement  seems  evident.  The  crossing  below  Hawk’s  Nest  is  imperative,  as 
the  location  of  the  railroad  precludes  the  possibility  of  locating  a canal  along  the  left 
bank  below  this  point.  There  will  then  remain  four  crossings  of  New  River  that  may 
be  considered  as  forming  necessary  features  in  the  project,  which  may  be  possibly 
altered  as  to  exact  location,  but  yet  will  remain  to  be  made  somewhere  along  the  line. 

The  method  of  crossing  just  below  Hinton  is  in  a measure  fixed  by  the  fact  that  the 
canal-bottom  at  that  place  could  not  readily  be  located  high  enough  to  enable  an  aque- 
duct to  be  used,  which  the  great  width  of  the  river,  moreover,  would  render  very 
costly.  It  is  therefore  only  proposed  to  cross  at  this  place  in  a pool,  using  wire  ropes 
with  traveling-blocks  for  passing  boats  during  freshets,  or  without  steam-power.  The 
other  crossings  can  be  made  either  by  aqueducts  or  in  pools,  the  former,  of  course, 
being  the  more  expensive,  yet  it  may  be  considered  the  only  proper  means  to  be  used 
for  a really  independent  canal. 

The  only  motive  for  incurring  the  extra  cost  of  constructing  a canal  where  a slack- 
water  navigation  is  practicable,  would  seem  to  be  to  secure  certain  immunity  from  the 
danger  of  interruption  of  the  navigation  by  floods,  and  if  the  continuity  of  this  pro- 
tection is  broken  at  several  points,  the  canal,  for  all  practical  purposes,  becomes  nearly, 
if  not  quite,  reduced  to  the  same  grade  as  the  slack-water  in  this  regard. 

However  this  may  be,  climates  are  submitted  for  making  the  crossings  b.oth  by 
aqueduct  and  pools,  except  at  the  lower  end  of  Stretcher’s  Neck  tunnel,  where  the 
Avant  of  space  for  locks  renders  it  practically  essential  to  cross  by  aqueduct  in  order 
to  overcome  a portion  of  the  lift  on  the  left  or  opposite  bank  from  the  tunnel. 

The  crossing  below  Hawk’s  Nest,  being  in  the  gorge,  it  is  suggested,  also  possesses 
claims  in  favor  of  the  use  of  the  aqueduct,  arising  from  the  declivity  and  contraction 
of  the  valley  in  that  vicinity. 

TUNNELS. 

The  same  tunnel-lines  described  in  the  project  for  slack  water  navigation  have  been 
connected  with  the  canal  survey  and  estimates  of  cost  prepared  for  the  different  sec- 
tions. The  one  similar  to  that  proposed  for  the  slack-water,  which  would  permit  boats 
to  pass  each  other  freely,  is  54  feet  wide  at  water-line.  The  other  is  similar  to  the  sec- 
tion proposed  for  the  summit  tunnel,  and  is  about  30  feet  wide  at  water-surface.  As 
all  of  these  tunnels  would  undoubtedly  (the  rock  being  exposed  along  the  river  above 
and  below  their  levels)  be  located  in  a compact  sandstone,  which  would  permit  their 
easy  excavation  and  maintenance  with  any  desired  width,  the  larger  section  would  be 
well  wort.h  the  extra  cost  over  the  smaller  tunnel. 

Assuming  that  the  rate  of  travel  in  the  tunnels  would  be  one-half  of  that  in  the  open 
canal,  there  would  be  no  gain  of  time  by  the  adoption  of  any  of  the  tunnels,  except 
that  at  Stretcher’s  Neck,  where  it  might  amount  to  forty  minutes. 


APPENDIX  V. 


739 


In  regard  to  cost,  tunnel  No.  1,  through  the  bend  above  Stretcher’s  Neck,  including 
the  aqueduct,  to  Stretcher’s  Neck,  would  cost  about  $1,000,000;  and  by  canal  and  aque- 
duct, $1,300,000;  or  by  canal  crossing  in  pool,  $700,000. 

At  this  point,  if  the  plan  of  crossing  in  all  cases  by  aqueduct  were  adopted,  ques- 
tions of  facility  of  operation,  directness,  &c.,  might  justify  the  use  of  the  tunnel ; oth- 
erwise there  can  be  no  question  as  to  the  propriety  of  adhering  to  the  river  at  a saving 
of  nearly  40  per  cent,  in  cost. 

Tunnel  No.  2,  through  Stretcher’s  Neck,  (saving  3 miles  by  a tunnel  1,300  feet  long,) 
appeared  to  be  so  evidently  the  proper  line  that  the  surveys  were  not  carried  around 
the  bend. 

Tunnel  No.  3,  about  4 miles  below  Stretcher’s  Neck,  would  cost  about  $1,260,000 ; and 
the  canal  around,  $656,000,  or  about  one-half  the  cost  of  the  tunnel. 

Tunnel  No.  4,  below  Plawk’s  Nest,  including  aqueducts  of  approach  in  both  cases, 
would  cost  about  $1,555,500 ; and  by  canal  around,  $846,000,  or  a little  more  than  one- 
half  the  cost  of  tunnel. 

Tunnel  No.  5,  through  the  Blue  Hole  Bend,  would  cost  about  $1,330,000;  and  the 
canal  around,  $1,161,000  ; so  that  neither  for  economy  of  time  nor  money  can  any  of  the 
tunnel-lines,  with  the  larger  section  of  tunnel,  be  recommended,  except  No.  2 through 
Stretcher’s  Neck. 

It  is  possible,  however,  that  the  inestimable  difficulties  of  construction  will  justify 
the  adoption  of  tunnel  No.  5,  as  its  cost  is  only  slightly  greater  than  the  line  around. 
Should  the  smaller  section  of  tunnel  be  adopted,  it  would  reduce  the  figures  in  the  case 
of  tunnel  No.  1 by  $460,000;  No.  3 by  $.507,000;  No.  4 by  $369,000;  No.  5,  $554,000 ; 
which  would  make  tunnels  Nos.  3,  4,  and  5 either  equal  to  or  less  than  the  canal-liiie 
around  in  cost,  and  their  adoption  would  therefore  be  justifiable. 

In  the  appendix  will  be  found  a tabular  statement  showing  distances  by  canal  and 
by  tunnels,  and  saving  in  distance  and  cost  of  each  route. 

AQUEDUCTS  AND  CULVERTS. 

The  aqueducts  and  culverts  over  20  feet  span  are,  with  one  or  two  exceptions,  pro- 
posed to  be  built  of  wrought-iron  trusses,  carrying  plate-iron  troughs  30  feet  wide  in 
the  clear.  This  plan  was  adopted  on  account  of  the  difficulty  of  crossing  either  the 
river  or  its  tributaries  at  a sufficient  elevation  above  low-water  surface  to  permit  the 
discharge  of  flood-waters  under  masoniy  structures.  It  is  proposed  to  convey  feed- 
water  over  all  the  aqueducts  in  pipes,  secured  to  the  outer  ends  of  floor-beams,  in  order 
that  the  levels  may  be  kept  full  when  the  aqueducts  are  occupied  by  boats  and  others 
are  being  locked  through  at  the  lower  end  of  the  levels. 

Owing  to  the  very  limited  area  of  the  water-shed  of  New  River  between  the  Green- 
brier and  Kanawha  Falls,  the  number  of  tributaries  of  any  considerable  size  is  unusually 
small,  and  in  consequence  the  number  of  large  culverts  is  equally  limited,  there  being 
(inclusive  of  Meadow  Creek)  only  7 over  20  feet  span  on  the  whole  division  60  miles 
in  length,  and  only  6 if  the  crossing  at  head  of  Meadow  Creek  Bottom  be  abandoned. 

It  is  proposed  to  cross  Meadow  Glade  and  Loup  Creeks  by  wrought-iron  riveted 
trusses,  of  66  feet,  158  feet,  and  108  feet  span,  respectively,  each  carrying  rectangular 
troughs  of  boiler-iron  30  feet  wide  in  the  clear. 

At  Mill,  Arbuckle,  Rush,  and  Wolf  Creek,  it  is  proposed  to  use  masonry  arches,  single 
spans  of  40  feet,  50  feet,  40  feet,  and  100  feet  respectively. 

The  aqueducts  for  river-crossings  are  three  in  number,  all  proposed  to  be  wrought- 
iron  Warren  girders,  carrying  a similar  plate-iron  trunk  to  that  described  for  the 
culverts. 

Aqueduct  No.  1,  upper  side  of  Stretcher’s  Neck,  has  4 spans  of  145  feet  each. 

No.  2,  lower  side  of  Stretcher’s  Neck,  has  2 spans  of  144  feet  each. 

No.  3,  below  Hawk’s  Nest,  has,  on  the  tunnel-line,  2 spans  of  167  feet  each,  and  on  the 
line  around  the  bend  3 spans  of  167  feet  each,  and  one  of  100  feet. 

Diagrams  of  these  trusses,  with  a general  section  of  water-trough,  will  be  found  with 
the  drawings  submitted. 

LOCKS. 

Investigation  of  the  subject  since  the  previous  reports  on  this  work  were  made 
tending  to  show  that  a change  in  the  proportions  of  the  lock-chamber  might  be  de- 
sirable, they  have  been  estimated  for  in  this  project  as  4 feet  wider  than  those  formerly 
j)roposed,  making  them  now  120  feet  by  24  feet  in  the  chamber. 

Owing  to  tfie  character  of  the  country  and  the  variable  rates  of  fall  in  the  river,  it 
has  been  found  difficult  to  establish  ornidhere  to  any  uniform  lift  for  the  locks,  though 
the  endeavor  has  been  made  to  introduce  as  few  changes  as  possible,  and  to  group  the 
yarious  lifts  together  in  sections.  In  j)oint  of  fact,  the  usual  and  ordinarily  correct 
method  has  here  been  necessarily  reversed,  and  the  lifts  of  the  locks  increased  as  we 
descend  the  river;  a matter  of  small  moment  in  this  case,  however,  as  the  river  along- 
side will  furnish  always  an  abundant  supply  of  water;  and  it  is  proposed  to  feed  the 
levels  by  culverts  or  pipes  passing  around  and  outside  of  the  locks.  It  was  proposed 
to  use  10  and  15  feet  lifts  as  the  standard,  and  of  the  58  lift-locks,  19  are  of  10  feet  lift 


740 


REPORT  OF  THE  CHIEF  OF  ENGINEERS. 

and  27  of  15  feet  lift ; of  the  remaining  twelve,  seven  have  12  fret  lifts,  one  has  11  feet 
lift,  three  have  8 feet  lift,  and  one  has  7 feet  lift.  It  is  pro))osed  to  lill  and  empty  the 
locks  by  means  of  culverts  in  the  side- walls  passing  around  the  hollow  quoins,  as  well 
as  by  slide-valves  in  the  gates.  The  gates  are  proposed  to  be  of  wood,  braced  with 
iron  ; the  masonry  to  be  similar  to  that  proposed  for  the  Kanawha  locks. 

The  division  comprises  57  levels,  their  average  length  being  a little  over  1 mile ; the 
longest  is  20,000  feet  and  the  shortest  400  feet. 

CANAL-PRISM. 

The  section  adopted  for  canal-prism  is  generally  74  feet  at  top,  60  feet  at  bottom, 
and  7 feet  deep.  River-side  (or  tow-path)  bank,  10  feet  on  top  ; berme-bank,  8 feet  on 
toi5 ; interior  slopes,  1 to  1. 

Through  the  Hinton  bottoms  the  prism  was  estimated  to  be  102  feet  wide,  in  order 
to  render  this  section  to  some  extent  available  as  a transfer-basin  for  the  trade  that 
will  at  this  point  undoubtedly  pass  up  and  down  New  River,  above  the  mouth  of  the 
Greenbrier.  An  estimate  is  also  submitted  for  reducing  the  width  through  the  gorgre 
(from  Sewell  down)  to  60  feet ; but  it  would  hardly  appear  that  the  economy  (i$500, 000 
in  17  miles)  would  balance  the  loss  of  capacity  for  transportation. 

The  surface  of  water  in  canal  as  located  is  generally  kept  well  above  the  highest 
flood-marks,  and  where  necessity  compels  any  deviation  from  this  rule,  the  river  bank 
and  wall  is  proposed  to  be  raised  to  a sufficient  height  to  prevent  injury  by  floods. 

The  horizontal  allignment  has  been  made  with  a view  of  using  no  less  radius  of  curv- 
ature than  1,000  feet.  In  a few  places  this  has  been  reduced  to  800  feet  where  the  total 
angular  change  was  slight,  and  in  others  the  canal  has  been  wideyed  to  form  a basin 
in  which  the  change  of  direction  could  readily  be  made. 

The  imperative  necessity  for  preserving  unobstructed  the  natural  water-way  of  the 
river  during  floods,  more  especially  in  its  lower  y)ortions,  has  ]»recluded  the  extension 
of  embankment-slopes  into  the  river,  and  rendered  necessary  the  frequent  and  contin- 
uous resort  to  retaining-walls,  which  will  be  found  to  form  the  main  item  of  expense 
throughout  the  section. 

The  general  character  of  about  two-thirds  of  the  excavations  on  this  division  would 
be  classed  as  loose  rock,  the  hill-sides  being  unive’^sally  composed  of  broken  fragments 
of  all  sizes  thrown  from  the  adjacent  cliffs,  and  but  slightly  intermixed  with  soil  or 
earth  of  any  kind. 

This  material  may  naturally  be  expected  to  slide  upon  very  slight  provocation,  and 
consequently,  where  deep  excavations  are  required,  the  hill-slope  must  alw^ays  be  pro- 
tected by  a retainiug-wall,  which  forms  another  la^ge  item  in  the  estimates. 

This  same  material  will  form  the  canal-prism  throughout  a large  proportion  of  the 
whole  line,  (exactly  how  great  a portion  cannot  be  stated  now,)  and  even  with  the 
liberal  allowance  of  water  to  he  had  it  will  require  some  stanching  to  render  it  suffi- 
ciently water-tight  for  use.  Whether  any  material  wffiich  will  prove  effective  for  this 
purpose  can  be  flmnd  on  the  highlands  bounding  the  river  valley,  so  as  to  be  economi- 
cally applied,  cannot  now  be  determined  ; the  valley  itself  certainly  offers  no  material 
in  any  considerable  quantities  at  all  suitable.  The  proportion  of  tbe  line  requiring  it, 
and  the  degree  or  amount  of  stanching  being  necessarily  indeterminate,  the  estimates 
(to  be  on  the  safe  side)  contemplate  for  the  whole  line  a continuous  lining  of  the  wetted 
perimeter  of  the  canal-prism,  with  6 inches  thickness  of  concrete,  costing  $26,400  per 
mile. 

It  is  altogether  probable  that  one-third  of  this  amount  could  be  stricken  off,  aud_pos- 
sihle  that  it  might  be  reduced  to  one-half  of  the  whole  length  of  the  division. 

In  preparing  estimates  for  walls,  excavations,  &c.,  the  position  of  the  rock-line  was 
assumed  from  its  position,  w'here  visible,  its  general  trend,  &c.,  and  in  all  cases  of  doubt 
the  assumptions  were  made  certainly  against  the  canal-line. 

WATER  SUPPLY  AND  FEEDERS. 

The  low-water  discharge  of  New  River  is  not  accurately  known  ; the  lowest  observed 
quantity  that  I am  aware  of  was  about  2,000  cubic  feet  per  second.  But  the  low-water 
discharge  of  the  Kanawha  River,  which  must  be  greater  than  that  of  New  River  alone, 
has  been  stated  at  1,300  cubic  feet  per  second,  so  that  it  would  not  be  safe  to  estimate 
New  River  at  over  800  cubic  feet  per  second. 

An  amount,  however,  that  it  requires  no  lengthy  calculation  to  show  is  an  abundant 
supply  for  any  trade  that  could  be  passed  through  the  projected  canal-locks. 

It  is  proposed  to  feed  the  canal  from  the  riv%r  at  three  points  in  the  60  miles,  about 
equidistant  from  each  other,  making  the  length  of  canal  to  be  supplied  by  each  one 
about  20  miles. 

Feeder  No.  1 would  be  the  pool  in  which  the  crossing  is  made  from  the  Hinton  bot- 
toms, and  is  formed  by  slack-water  dam  No.  1. 

Feeder  No.  2 would  be  near  Glade  Creek,  the  pool  being  formed  by  a dam  situated 
about  half-way  between  dams  Nos.  9 and  10  of  the  slack- water  scheme.  The  length  of 
feeder-drain  is  about  1,500  feet. 

Feeder  No.  3 would  be  below  Arbuckle  Creek.  The  reservoir  is  here  formed  by  a dam 


APPENDIX  V.  741 

located  I he  same  as  dam  No.  18,  (slack- water,)  with  some  changes  of  dimensions,  &c. 
The  length  of  feeder-drain  here  required  is  1,725  feet. 

Eacli  leeder,  supposing  tbe  loss  from  all  causes  to  he  at  the  rate  of  100  cubic  feet 
per  mile  per  minute,  would  he  required  to  supply  about  .34  cubic  feet  per  second.  It 
is  pro])osed  to  form  the  feeder-channel  by  first  clearing  away  the  loosest  lUhris  from 
the  hill-sides,  and  then  covering  the  area  required  with  a coarse  concrete,  (afterward 
plastered,)  upon  which  the  sidewalks  would  be  built,  to  form  a rectangular  water-way 
of  the  requisite  dimensions. 

It  is  believed  that  the  masses  of  loose  rock  forming  these  si  >pes  will  afford  a sufidcently- 
firm  foundation  for  such  a structure,  and  the  very  great  cost  of  excavating  to  solid 
rock  will  be  avoided. 

ESTIMATES. 

The  estimates  show  that  for  the  whole  line — 

1.  Using  all  the  tunnels,  54  feet  wide,  and  making  all  crossings  of  river 

by  aqueduct,  except  at  Hintou,  (Meadow  Creek  crossing  being  aban- 


doned,) the  total  cost  would  be $21,255,590 

2.  Using  54-feet  tunnels,  1,  2,  4,  and  5,  and  aqueduct-crossings 20,  650,  895 

3.  Using  54-feet  tunnels,  1 and  2,  and  aqueduct-crossings 19,762,498 

4.  Using  30-feet  tunnels,  I,  2,  3,  4,  and  5,  and  aqueduct-crossings 19, 107,518 

5.  Using  54-feet  tunnels,  2,  4,  and  5,  and  crossing  in  pools 18,  504,  440 

6.  Using  54-feet  tunnel,  2,  and  crossings  in  pools,  (about) 17,  600,  000 


Estimate  No.  2,  amounting  to  $20,650,895,  is  the  arrangement  I would  recommend 
for  an  independent  lateral  canal,  which  could  be  reduced  to  $20,122,641  by  making 
canal  only  60  feet  y^ide  at  water-surface  from  Sewell  down. 

Accompanying  this  will  be  found  tabulated  the  following  detailed  estimates  : 

1.  Fifty-seven  sheets  of  estimates  of  57  levels  of  canal-line. 

2.  Eight  sheets  of  estimates  on  main  and  alternate  canal-line. 

3.  Two  sheets  of  estimates  for  feeders. 

4.  One. sheet  comparison  of  cost  of  tunnels  of  large  and  small  section,  (canal.) 

5.  Two  sheets  estimate  of  excavation  below  Sewell,  if  canal  is  made  60  feet  wide. 

6.  Three  sheets  tabulated  statement  of  cost  of  each  level,  accumulated  totals,  and 
other  information  relating  thereto. 

7.  Thirty-four  sheets  of  estimates  of  slack-water  line. 

8.  Two  sheets  of  estimates  on  main  and  alternate  lines,  (slack- water.) 

9.  One  sheet  table  of  aqueducts,  giving  location,  dimensions,  &c.,  (canal-line.) 

10.  One  sheet  comparative  table  of  cost  and  distances  by  main  and  alternate  lines. 
Also,  the  following  drawings : 

1.  Fourteen  sheets  general  map  of  division,  scale  200  feet  to  1 inch,  showing  topog- 
raphy, &c.,  and  location  of  canal  and  slack-water  projects ; canal  in  brown,  slack- 
water  in  blue. 

2.  One  sheet  showing  lines  of  exploration,  (tracing.) 

3.  Four  sheets  of  profile  of  canal-line,  (tracings.) 

4.  Five  sheets  of  profile  of  slack-water  line,  (tracings.) 

5.  One  sheet  general  cross-section  of  large  and  small  section  of  tunnel,  (tracing.) 

6.  One  sheet  canal-lock  drawings,  (tracings.) 

7.  Two  sheets  slack- water-lock  drawings,  (tracings.) 

8.  Two  sheets  (cross-section  paper)  diagrams  of  aqueducts  over  Glade  Meadow,  Mill, 
Loup,  Arbuckle,  Rush,  and  Wolf  Creeks,  (canal-line.) 

9.  Nineteen  sheets  (cross-section  paper)  details  of  tunnel-lines  and  aqueducts  across 
New  River. 

10.  Seven  hundred  and  forty-five  sheets  (cross-section  paper)  showing  construction 
of  canal-line. 

11.  Fourteen  sheets  (cross-section  paper)  with  calculations  of  quantities  and  dia- 
grams of  .33  slack-water  dams. 

12.  Eleven  sheets  (crois-secrion  paper)  with  calculations  of  quantities  and  diagrams 
of  slack-water  canals  and  locks. 

13.  Fifteen  sheets  calculations  and  details  of  slack-water  tunnels. 

Note-hooks. 

1.  Five  transit-books,  (New  River  survey.) 

2.  Three  topography  books. 

3.  Eight  level-books. 

4.  Seven  cross-section  books. 

5.  One  sounding-book. 

6.  Also  the  following  books,  containing  notes  of  reconnoissance  of  Loup  Creek  : one 
transit-book,  one  level-book,  one  barometric  level. 

Respectfully  submitted.  . 

N.  H.  Hutton, 

Assis t an  t Engl n eer. 

Col.  Wm.  P.  Craighill, 

Major  Corps  of  Engineers,  U.  S.  A. 


742 


REPORT  OF  THE  CHIEF  OF  ENGINEERS. 


APPROXIMATE  ESTIMATE  OP  EFFECT  OF  DAMS  IN  GORGE  OF  NEW  RIVER,  BETWEEN 
KEENEY^S  AND  NARROW  FALLS. 

For  discharge  over  dams,  Francis’s  formula  is  used,  as  being  a mean  of  those  of  other 
observers : 

R=3.33  L (/i)  f. 

The.  following  assumptions  are  made,  all  of  which  are  justified  either  by  ascertained 
facts  in  the  case  of  this  river,  conditions  proposed  to  be  obtained  by  theiilans  for  this 
work,  or  experience  on  other  rivers  of  somewhat  similar  characteristics: 

1st.  That  the  river  falls  about  1 foot  in  300  feet. 

2d.  That  the  bed  and  valley  of  the  river  is  cleared  of  all  obstructions  to  a chanuel- 
Way  280  feet  wide  at  low-water  surface,  and  side  slopes  not  less  than  1 to  1 for  30  feet 
above  low-water  level. 

3d.  That  the  dams  are  600  feet  long  on  comb  and  30  feet  above  river-bottom. 

4th.  That  at  about  the  length  of  dam,  behind  or  above  it,  the  river-valley,  at  level  of 
crest  of  dam,  has  at  least  a width  of  400  feet. 

5th.  That  the  water  in  the  pools  will  rise  about  2 feet  for  every  increase  of  1 foot  in 
depth  above  comb  of  dam  and  just  behind  it. 


Dam  600 /ee/  Io7)g,30  feet  high;  river  above  least  width  of  AQO  feet;  river  helotv  least  width 

of  280  feet. 


Depth  on  comb. 

Discharge  in 
cubic  feet. 

Area  600  feet 
below  dam. 

Area  600  feet 
above  dam. 

Velocity  600 
feet  below 
dam. 

Velocity  600 
feet  above 
dam. 

Remarks. 

Feet. 

1 

1,990 

Sq.ft. 

2,  524 

Sq.ft. 

12,  060 

Ft.  per  sec. 

0.  78 

Ft.  per  see. 
0.16 

2 

5,  640 

3,  096 

12,  .524 

1.  82 

0.  45 

3 

10,  390 

3,  676 

12,  992 

2.  82 

0.  80 

4 

13,  850 

4,  264 

13,  464 

3.  24 

1.  02 

5 

22,  340 

4,  860 

13,  940 

4.60 

1.  61 

6 

29,  370 

5,  464 

14,  420 

5.  37 

2.  03 

7 

37,  000 

6,  076 

15,  904 

*6.  00 

2.  33 

*6  feet  per  second— 4 miles  per  hour — 

8 

45,  210 

6,  696 

15,  392 

6.  75 

2.  94 

limit  of  navigation. 

9 

53,  946 

7,  324 

15,  884 

7.  36 

3.  39 

10 

63,  270 

7,  960 

16,  380 

8.  00 

3.  86 

11 

72,  880 

8,  704 

16,  880 

8.  37 

4.  31 

12 

83, 000 

9,  256 

17,  384 

9.  00 

4.  77 

13 

93,  640 

9,916 

17,  892 

9.  44 

5.  23 

14 

104,  630 

1 

10,  584 

18,  404 

10.  00 

t5.  68 

tlsTearly  4 miles  per  hour  above  dam. 

REPORT  OF  MR.  J.  M.  HARRIS,  ASSISTANT  ENGINEER. 

Baltimore,  Md.,  December  9,  1874. 

Sir:  Herewith  I submit  to  you  the  report  of  notes  taken  by  me  at  your  request^  to 
arrive  at  an  approximate  estimate  of  the  cost  of  removing  the  obstructions  in  the  canon 
of  New  River,  so  as  to  render  its  bed  suitable  for  slack-water  navigation. 

These  notes  were  commenced  at  a point  about  three  miles  below  Bowyer’s  Ferry, 
where  the  canal  terminates,  after  passing  around  Keeney’s  Falls.  From  this  point 
downward  the  river  in  many  places  becomes  very  much  contracted  by  immense  bowl- 
ders of  all  shapes  on  its  banks  and  in  its  bed.  At  other  points  bars  have  been  formed 
by  the  creeks  emptying  material  into  the  stream,  also  consisting  of  bowlders,  and  vary- 
ing in  size  from  many  yards  down  to  gravel. 

The  object  of  the  estimate  was  to  ascertain  w'hat  it  would  cost 'to  remove  these  ob- 
structions to  the  natural  flow  of  the  stream,  and  thus  cause  the  channel  at  low-water 
mark  to  be  wider,  to  create  a wider  space  above  the  bed  of  the  stream  for  the  water 
to  escape  in  times  of  freshets,  and  thus  render  the  bed  of  the  stream  safe  for  slack- 
water  navigation.  I , deem  it  unnecessary  to  mention  the  method  of  arriving  at  quan- 
tities, as  the  note-books  will  fully  explain,  and  about  which  you  were  consulted  pre- 
vious to  entering  on  this  duty.  I will  simply  add  that  I have  exercised  the  best 
judgment  of  which  I was  capable  in  making  this  estimate,  and  though  much  of  the 
material  was  not  actually  measured, being  inaccessible  in  a rapid  river,  yet,  by  compar- 
ing quantities  which  were  actually  measured  with  such  of  a similar  character  that 
could  not  be  measured,  I have  arrived  at  an  estimate  whieh  may  be  relied  on  as 
an  approximation  near  the  truth  as  to  quantities.  These  quantities  have  been  classi 
fled  into  two  parts,  the  first  composed  of  solid  rock  and  large  bowlders,  requiring  blast 


APPENDIX  V. 


743 


ing.  The  second  consisted  of  small  bowlders,  less  than  a cubic  yard  in  size,  loose  rock 
and  gravel.  The  first  quantity  I have  found,  agreeably  to  my  estimate,  to  be  357,548^ 
yards,  and  the  latter  35,578  cubic  yards.  The  former  at  80  cents  and  the  latter  at  60 
cents  per  yard,  produce  the  sum  of  $307,385.80,  the  whole  amount  of  the  estimate. 

You  will  understand  that  this  estimate  embraces  all  the  material  to  be  blasted  or  ex- 
cavated from  the  banks  and  bed  of  New  River,  extending  from  Keeney’s  Falls  to  the 
Falls  of  Kanawha,  as  if  there  were  to  be  slack-water  throughout.  But  there  will  be 
several  short  sections  of  canal  in  this  space,  viz  : 1,100  feet  below  dam  No.  23,  2,500 
feet  below  dam  No.  24,  and  3,700  feet  below  dam  No.  29. 

The  amount  estimated  for  improving  the  bed  of  the  river  corresponding  to  these 
spaces  is  $24,337.60,  which,  if  deducted,  would  leave  $283,048.20  as  the  estimate  of 
clearing  the  river  of  obstructions,  and  if  the  tunnel  commencing  opposite  Pope’s  Nose 
(railroad)  tunnel,  and  terminating  at  or  below  the  Blue  Flole,  is  adopted,  there  would 
be  another  item  of  $45,888  to  be  deducted  from  the  amount  for  clearing  the  bed  of 
the  river,  leaving  $237,160.20,  or  rather  less  than  $15,000  per  mile. 

I deem  it  proper  further  to  state  that  I estimated  the  width  of  the  river  at  two  or 
three  of  tlie  narrowest  points  which  could  be  found,  with  the  view  to  ascertain  what 
would  be  the  narrowest  point  at  low-water,  when  the  bowlders  and  projecting  points 
are  cut  off,  agreeably  to  the  i)lan  proposed  and  embraced  in  this  estimate.  The  nar- 
rowest point  I found  would  be  265  feet  at  low-water  when  the  obstructions  are  re- 
moved. The  next  narrowest  point  I found  to  be  277.7  feet  w'hen  obstructions  are  re- 
moved. These  points  alluded  to  were  between  Cotton  Hill  and  the  Blue  Hole,  one  at 
3007  + 58,  and  the  other  at  station  3063.  At  the  former,  the  railroad  was  64  feet  from 
the  edge  of  the  river,  but  from  the  river’s  edge  on  the  left  bank  the  rock  rises  nearly 
perpendicular.  There  would  be  no  difficulty  in  sloping  the  rock  1 to  1 by  bla.sting  off 
a portion  of  it,  and  the  same  slope  or  greater  could  be  given  on  the  opposite  side,  so 
that  at  a rise  of  30  feet  there  would  be  at  least  an  area  of  9,000  square  feet  to  pass  the 
floods  of  New  River. 

The  railroad-banks  slope  about  to  1 at  the  other  point,  and,  though  the  low-water 
surface  US  narrower  than  at  the  upper  point,  there  would  be  less  trouble  in  giving 
enough  space  here  to  pass  the  floods  of  New  River  than  at  the  upper  point. 

I saw  no  other  points  along  New  River  where  it  seemed  to  be  so  much  confined  for 
want  of  space  as  at  the  points  just  named,  and  it  was  on  this  account  1 thought  proper 
to  ascertain  its  width,  or  at  least  what  would  be  its  width  at  low  water,  when  the  bed 
of  the  stream  is  prepared  for  slack-wuiter  navigation. 

Respectfully  submitted,  by  your  obedient  servant, 

J.  M.  Harris, 
Assistant  Engineer. 

N.  H.  Hutton, 

Assistant  Engineer. 


REPORT  AND  ESTIMATES  ON  THE  IMPROVEMENT  OF  THE  GREAT  KANAWHA  RIVER,  BY 
MR.  A.  M.  SCOTT,  ASSISTANT  ENGINEER. 

Charleston,  W.  Va.,  January  29,  1875. 

Colonel:  I have  the  honor  to  submit  the  following  report  and  estimates  on  the  im- 
provement of  the  Great  Kanawha  River  : 

Your  instructions,  dated  August  17,  1874,  and  afterward  somewhat  modified,  directed 
me  to  make  such  additional  surveys  as  were  necessary  to  enable  estimates  to  be  made, 
on  the  following  plans  of  improving  the  river,  so  as  to  afford  a useful  depth  of  not  less 
than  6i  feet,  or  an  actual  depth  of  7 feet  at  all  seasons  : 

1st.  For  a lock  and  dam  improvement  from  the  Great  Falls  to  the  foot  of  Paint  Creek 
Shoal,  and  for  sluice-navigation  in  the  remainder  of  the  river,  assisted  by  a reservoir. 
This  to  be  a revision  of  Mr.  E.  Lorraine’s  estimate,  submitted  to  you  in  December,  1872. 

2d.  For  a lock  and  dam  improvement  throughout,  with  locks  about  250  by  50  feet  in 
the  chamber. 

3d.  For  movable  dams  in  the  lower  part  of  the  river  to  accommodate  the  coal-trade, 
on  theydan  recommended  for  the  Ohio. 

I will  briefly  refer  to  previous  surveys  and  the  data  at  hand  when  your  instructions 
were  received. 

SURVEY  OF  1838, 

made  by  Mr.  Charles  Ellet,  jr.,  for  the  James  River  and  Kanawha  Company,  and  em- 
bracing the  whole  river  from  Great  Falls  to  the  mouth.  The  fall  and  distances,  as 
established  by  it,  have  been  proved  very  reliable. 


SURVEY  OF  1856-’57-’58, 

made  for  the  same  company  under  directions  of  Mr.  Lorraine,  by  Mr.  John  A.  Byers 
It  began  at  the  head  of  Huddleston’s  Island,  6.80  miles  below  the  falls,  and  extended 


744 


REPORT  OF  THE  CHIEF  OF  ENGINEERS. 


to  the  mouth  of  the  river.  This  survey  was  without'doubt  very  intelligently  and  care- 
fully made,  and  from  it  we  have  a good  hydrographic  map  of  the  river,  except  in  some 
of  the  deep  pools,  where  hut  few  soundings  were  taken.  The  profile  is  continuous,  and 
agrees  closely  with  that  of  1838. 

GOVERNMENT  SURVEYS. 

First,  a profile  showing  fall  from  Great  Falls  to  the  foot  of  Lykens’  Shoal,  from  a 
survey  made  under  your  direction  in  1872  ; second,  special  surveys  made  under  Colonel 
Merrill,  Corps  of  Engineers,  in  1873.  The  latter  embrace  a little  more  than  six  miles 
of  the  river  at  different  points  where  improvements  have  been  proposed  or  carried  on. 
These  surveys  tend  to  prove  the  reliability  of  the  old  maps  and  profiles. 

To  carry  out  your  instructions  it  was  necessary  to  make  additional  surveys  at  several 
points,  particularly  of  localities  where  locks  and  dams  were  proposed,  in  order  to  select 
the  sites  as  nearly  as  possible  and  make  such  examinations  as  were  necessary  to  form 
an  estimate. 

Accordingly,  a party  was  organized,  and  the  survey  begau  at  the  head  of  Loup  Creek 
Shoal,  3.40  miles  below  the  falls,  on  September  14,  1874.  About  six  weeks  were  occu- 
pied in  the  field-work,  surveys  being  made  at  sixteen  different  points.  The  soundings 
were  all  instrumentally  located,  and  at  each  proposed  site  careful  cross-sections  run 
and  drillings  made  to  determine  the  necessary  character  of  foundations. 

During  the  first  week  of  the  survey  the  water  fell  to  a point  two-tenths  of  afoot 
below  what  has  been  considered  ordinary  low- water  mark,  and  two  parties  were  started 
to  establish  references  at  all  desirable  points  along  the  river.  This  was  fortunately 
accomplished  before  the  v/ater  rose,  and  enabled  us  to  reduce  all  work  to  a uniform 
and  satisfactory  reference.  These  bench-marks,  and  others  made  during  the  survey, 
were  well  established  and  described. 

In  connection  with  these  surveys  and  the  estimates  and  drawings  presented,  allow 
me  to  refer  to  the  valuable  assistance  rendered  by  Mr.  C.  K.  McDermott  and  Mr.  John 
S.  Hogue,  civil  engineers. 

The  general  features  of  the  river  and  the  history  and  description  of  various  plans 
that  have  been  recommended  for  its  improvement  have  been  so  fully  presented  in  re- 
cent reports  of  the  Chief  of  Engineers  that  nothing  need  be  added  here.  Particular 
reference  is  made  to  your  reports  for  1871  and  1873,  particularly  to  Mr.  E.  Lorraine’s, 
accompanying  the  latter,  (Appendix  T 28,)  and  to  Colonel  Merrill’s  report  for  1873, 
(Appendix  M 3.) 

The  following  table,  showing  the  fall  and  distance  from  the  Great  Falls  of  places  to 
be  mentioned  in  this  report,  and  of  principal  points  along  the  river,  may  be  u,Beful : 


Places. 

Distance  from 
Great  Falls  in 
miles. 

Fall  from  Great 
Falls  Basin  in 
feet. 

Length  and  fall  of  principal 
shoals,  &c.,  in  low  water. 

Foot  of  Great  Falls 

Foot  of  Long  Shoal 

00.  00 
1.38 

00.00 
10.  38 

Shoal  falls  10'.28  in  4,207  feet. 

Foot  of  Loup  Creek  Shoal 

4.  71 

22.15 

Shoal  falls  10M2  in  8,736  feet. 

Foot  of  Lykens’  Shoal,  town  of  Cannelton 

9.  19 

32.10 

Shoal  falls  6'. 19  in  2,250  feet. 

Foot  of  Harvey’s  Shoal 

10.  61 

36.  99 

Shoal  falls  3'. 98  in  1,400  feet. 

Foot  of  Hunter’s  Shoal 

11.28 

38.  09 

Shoal  falls  P.60  in  950  feet. 

Foot  of  Windsor  Shoal 

12.  39 

39.  50 

Shoal  falls  O'.  83  in  1,300  feet. 

Foot  of  Paint  Creek  Shoal 

15.  12 

45.  70 

Shoal  falls  5'. 12  in  2,300  feet. 

Foot  of  Cabin  Creek  Shoal 

20.  83 

53.  21 

Shoal  falls  5'. 15  in  2,376  feet. 

Foot  of  Witcher’s  Creek  Shoal 

23.  94 

57.  48 

Shoal  Jails  3'.70  in  2,500  feet. 

Foot  of  Cat-fish  Shoal,  head  of  Charlestoji  Pool,  near 

26.  49 

60.  29 

Shoal  falls  1'.59  in  1,400  feet. 

Brownstown. 

City  of  Charleston,  near  foot  of  Charles’  Pool 

36.82 

60.  76 

Pool  10.65  miles  long,  fall  0'.47. 
Shoal  falls  2'.71  in  1,700  feet. 

Foot  of  Elk  Shoal : 

37.  46 

63.  47 

Foot  of  Two-Mile  Shoal 

39.  33 

66.  55 

Shoal  falls  2'. 79  in  1,900  feet. 

Foot  of  Island  Shoal 

40.  05 

68.  85 

Shoal  falls  2'. 21  in  1,900  feet. 

Foot  of  Tyler  Shoal 

41.62 

72.  93 

Shoal  falls  4'.  10  in  5,700  feet. 

Foot  of  New  Comer  Shoal 

43.  52 

74.  96 

Shoal  falls  O'. 59  in  500  feet. 

Foot  of  Johnson  Shoal 

53.  03 

83r  03 

Shoal  tails  4'.35  in  5,600  feet. 

Foot  of  Tacket  Shoal 

55.  81 

86. 11 

Shoal  falls  2'  20  in  2,904  feet. 

Foot  of  Bed-House  Shoal 

62. 14 

89.  86 

Shoal  falls  2'.84  in  1,850  feet. 

Foot  of  Gillespie’s  Ripple 

67.  25 

93.  67 

Ripple  falls  O'.  90  in  2,200  feet. 

Foot  of  Knob  Shoal 

71.  78 

97. 17 

Shoal  falls  2'.60  in  3,200  feet. 

Foot  of  Buffalo  Shoal 

73. 10 

98.  54 

Shoal  falls  0'  90  in  1,000  feet. 

Foot  of  Five  Ripples— Ripple,  Dehby,  Intermediate, 

76.  34 

102.  25 

Total  fall  2'.80  in  12,100  feet. 

Eighteen-Mile,  and  Ripple. 

Foot  of  Arbuckle  Shoal 

79.  20 

lO.'^.  02 

Shoal  falls  2'  03  in  3,300  feet. 

Foot  of  Thirteen-Mile  Shoal 

82.  63 

106.  77 

Shoal  falls  O'. 86  in  l,2o0  feet. 

Foot  of  Three-Mile  or  Cantrell’s  Bar 

Point  Pleasant,  mouth  of  Kanawha 

<o  <c 

^ iO 

K> 

o o 

107.  70 
107.  92 

APPENDIX  V. 


745 


PLAN  rOK  SLUICE  NAVIGATION  BELOW  PAINT  CREEK. 

It  appears  to  be  conceded  that  a lock  and  dam  improvetncnt  is  advisable  for  the  first 
fifteen  miles  from  the  Great  Falls — tliat  is,  to  the  foot  of  Paint  Criiek  Shoal — and  there 
is  but  one  other  plan  to  be  eomiiared  with  the  same  system  in  the  remainder  of  the 
river.  This  is  the  combination  of  Fisk  and  Ellet’s  plans  for  sluice  navigation,  as 
suggested  by  Mr.  Lorraine.  As  explained  in  his  report  referred  to,  it  consists  in  making 
the  best  possible  use  of  all  the  water  in  low  stages,  by  “ grading  the  river”  with  an 
elaborate  system  of  slu  ce-dams  and  supplying  the  deficiency  from  a reservoir. 

Ordinary  brush  and  pile  dams  were  proposed,  filled  in  with  stone  and  gravel,  and  the 
tops  well  secured  by  a frame-work  of  sipiare  timber.  They  were  to  be  built  square 
across  the  river,  with  a waterway  or  sluice  120  feet  wide  on  top  and  94  feet  at  bottom  ; 
the  bottom  of  the  sluice  to  be  a strong  crib  filled  and  backed  up  with  loose  stone. 
The  top  of  each  crib  was  to  be  placed  6 inches  below  the  one  next  above,  consequently 
requiring  a dam  for  every  6 inches  of  fall  in  the  river.  Mr.  Lorraine  states  that  this 
must  be  made  a matter  of  experiment,  and  thinks  it  might  be  practicable  to  reduce 
the  number  of  dams  by  increasing  the  fall  from  one  to  another  to  9 and  perhaps  to  12 
inches.  His  estimate,  however,  was  based  upon  a 6-iuch  fall,  necessitating  120  dams 
below  the  foot  of  Paint  Creek  shoal.  They  were  to  be  so  located  as  to  reduce  the 
slope  on  the  worst  shoals  to  2 feet  per  mile.  With  this  arrangement,  and  the  ordinary 
low-water  discharge  taken  at  1,350  cubic  feet  per  second,  there  would  be  a theoretical 
depth  of  about  3 feet  and  10  inches  in  the  sluices.  To  fill  the  waterways  and  make  7 
feet  depth,  1,970  feet  additional,  or  a total  of  3,320  cubic  feet  per  second,  would  be  re- 
quired. This  result,  which  is  considerably  larger,  proportionally,  than  given  by  Mr. 
Lorraine,  was  obtained  by  assuming  a uniform  channel  of  the  dimensions  proposed  for 
the  sluices,  with  a slope  of  2 feet  per  mile,  and  using  the  formula. 

V=^8975.41  —.10889. 

If  the  discharge  of  the  waterway  is  considered  as  from  one  reservoir  to  another,  with 
a head  of  6 inches,  a liberal  calculation  gives  nearly  the  same  result  as  above.  Besides 
the  water  required  to  fill  the  sluices,  about  200  cubic  feet  per  second  would  be  needed  to 
keep  the  dams  submerged,  making  a total  of  2,170  cubic  feet  per  second,  or  187,488,000 
per  day,  to  be  furnished  by  the  reservoir.  The  annual  available  contents  of  the  Meadow 
River  reservoir,  according  to  the  final  estimate  of  Mr.  Ellet,  would  be  10,722,032,640 
cubic  feet.  This,  divided  by  187,488,000,  gives  over  57,  the  number  of  days  the  reser- 
voir would  be  able  to  maintain  7 feet  navigation,  when  the  discharge  of  the  river  was 
reduced,  to  1,350  feet  per  second. 

We  have  but  little  reliable  data  to  determine  how  much  help  the  river  would  prob- 
ably need,  there  having  been  no  regular  gauge  observations  taken  previous  to  August 
1,  1872.  The  following  table  is  made  from  a reliable  record,  and  compared  as  near  as 
possible  to  the  references  used  by  Mr.  Ellet  : 


W ater  doAvn 
to  0.0,  or  or- 
dinary low 
mark. 

Below  4-  0'.5. 

Below  -f  I'.O. 

Below  + 1'.5. 

Below  -f-  2'.0. 

After  August  1, 1872 

Bays. 

Days. 

Days. 

Days. 

Days. 

18 

3fi 

56 

75 

91 

Entire  season  of  1873 

00 

6 

28 

44 

65 

Entire  season  of  1874 

7 

21 

54 

yo 

115 

Both  1872  and  1874  were  considered  low-water  seasons.  The  discharge,  computed  by 
Mr.  Ellet  from  observations  taken  just  below  the  foot  of  Elk  Shoal,  was,  for  -(-  2'.07, 
8,550  cubic  feet  per  second.  We  have  nothing  very  reliable  from  which  to  determine 
it  between  -f-2'.07  and  low  water,  but  it  will  be  safe  to  consider  it  for  -}-l'.5  to  be  3,520 
cubic  feet,  the  liberal  estimate  of  quantity  required  to  fill  the  sluices  and  keep  the 
dams  submerged. 

The  “ low-water  season  ” has  been  taken  at  sixty  days,  in  previous  reports,  and  the 
record  since  August  1,  1872,  as  well  as  general  information  to  be  had,  goes  to  prove  this 
a safe  assumption,  and  that  a reservoir  able  to  keep  up  the  supply  during  fifty-seven 
days,  of  what  can  safely  be  called  the  minimum  discharge,  would  bo  ample  for  any 
reasonable  emergency. 

ESTIMATE  OF  COST. 

As  stated,  this  plan  contemplates  locks  and  dams  down  to  the  foot  of  Faint  Creek 
Shoal.  The  details  for  this  part  of  the  estimate  will  be  given  under  that  for  slack- 
water  throughout.  The  table  submitted,  showing  dimensions,  costs,  &c.,  of  each  sluice- 
dam,  is,  as  near  as  possible,  a revision  of  Mr.  Lorraine’s,  increased  to  afford  seven  feet  of 


746  REPORT  OF  THE  CHIEF  OF  ENGINEERS. 


water.  Owing  to  the  nature  of  the  plan,  this  can  he  considered  hut  an  approximation. 
Care  has  been  taken,  however,  to  make  it  large  enough,  and  it  is  thought  sufficient  to 
cover  all  contingencies.  The  following  is  a summary  for  the  complete  improvement : 
For  four  stone  locks  and  dams  above  Paint  Creek  Shoal,  locks  280  by 


50  feet  in  the  chamber $918,  041  00 

For  excavations  of  channels  and  approaches  to  locks 95,000  00 


Total  to  foot  of  Paint  Creek  Shoal 1,  013,  041  00 

For  120  sluice-dams  below  Paint  Creek  Shoal 490,216  00 

For  protection  of  banks  below  Paint  Creek  Shoal 48,  000  00 

For  excavation  of  channels  below  Paint  Creek  Shoal 52,  200  00 

Lorraine’s  revised  estimate  for  Meadow  River  reservoir 533,  200  00 


2,136,657  00 

Add  10  per  cent 213,665  00 


Total  estimate 2, 350,  322  00 


IMPROVEMENT  BY  LOCKS  AND  DAMS  THROUGHOUT. 

Under  this  head  your  instructions  direct  two  estimates,  one  for  an  ordinary  slack- 
water  improvement,  the  other  for  a modification  of  this  well-known  system  in  the 
lower  part  of  the  river  by  movable  dams,  on  the  plan  proposed  for  the  Ohio.  That  for 
the  common  improvement  will  be  given  first. 

The  general  character  of  the  surveys  made  in  September  and  October,  1874,  under 
your  direction,  has  been  explained.  As  stated,  they  were  mostly  directed  to  making 
approximate  locations  and  thorough  surveys  at  the  proposed  sites  for  locks  and  dams. 
The  relative  arrangement  as  to  location,  lift  of  locks,  &c.,  will  be  given  in  a table  with 
a summary  of  the  estimate. 

SIZE  OF  LOCKS. 

You  gave  me  some  latitude  by  directing  the  estimate  to  be  made  for  locks  about  250 
by  50  feet  in  the  chamber.  The  large-sized  coal-barges  are  from  120  to  130  feet  long, 
and  generally  24  feet  wide.  To  accommodate  this  important  interest  the  locks  should 
have  at  least  an  available  length  of  about  250  feet.  They  were  finally  planned  and 
estimated  at  280  feet  between  quoins,  and  a clear  width  of  50  feet  in  the  chamber.  This 
gives  an  available  length  of  245  feet  for  the  full  width  of  the  lock.  I think  this  still 
too  short,  and  that  they  should  be  built  to  afford  a clear  length  of  260  feet,  or  nearly 
300  between  quoins.  The  additional  length  of  chamber  would  add  but  little  to  the 
cost  and  materially  increase  the  capacity  of  the  locks,  as  they  would  nicely  admit  four 
barges  of  the  size  which  experience  has  proved  to  be  the  most  economical  for  the  ship- 
ment of  coal,  (130  by  24  feet,)  or  three  barges  and  a small  tow-boat. 

CHARACTER  AND  DESCRIPTION  OF  MASONRY. 

As  directed,  the  estimate  was  made  for  stone  locks,  dams,  and  abutments  of  the  best 
kind  of  hydraulic  ra\asoury  ; the  general  design  of  the  locks  to  be  similar  to  the  last 
built  on  the  Monongahela  River  by  the  navigation  company,  and  one  now  in  progress 
by  the  Government,  at  Hoard’s  Rock,  under  Colonel  Merrill.  The  water  is  admitted 
through  the  upper  platform  and  an  arched  miter-wall,  and  discharged  through  the 
lower  gates.  The  masonry  was  estimated  rather  heavier  than  that  in  the  Monongahela 
locks;  the  river  and  shore  walls  of  the  chamber  respectively  at  8 and  6 feet  wide  on 
top,  with  an  outside  batter  of  about  1 in  6.  Around  the  gates  and  abreast  of  recesses 
these  dimensions  were  about  doubled.  The  dams  were  planned  with  a width  at  base 
of  not  less  than  10  feet,  or  seven-tenths  the  height;  9 feet  wide  on  top,  and  capped 
with  a sloping  course  of  timber  and  plank,  well  fastened  to  the  masonry.  Abutments 
to  be  carried  up  1*5  feet  above  the  crests  of  the  dams,  6 feet  wide  on  top,  with  a double 
batter  of  1 in  12;  total  length  efface  and  wings  averaging  about  120  feet.  The 
estimate  includes  substantial  guide-cribs  and  ice-breakers  above,  and  dry  retaining- 
walls  below  the  locks,  and  a liberal  allowance  for  paving  and  riprapping  the  banks 
at  least  300  feet  below  the  works. 

FOUNDATIONS. 

Considerable  time  and  labor  were  spent  to  determine  their  necessary  character.  As 
shown  by  the  following  table,  solid  rock  can  be  obtained  at  seven  of  the  sites,  and  it 
is  thought  can  be  found  at  others,  by  more  thorough  examination,  without  mate- 
rially changing  the  locations  selected.  At  the  remaining  five  sites,  foundations  of 
piles  and  timber  are  proposed,  substantially  like  those  adopted  for  the  Illinois  River 
locks,  at  Henry  and  Copperas  Creeks.  The  first  was  built  a few  years  ago,  and  the 
latter  is  now  in  progress,  under  direction  of  Colonel  Macomb,  Corps  of  Engineers. 

Below  each  dam  not  on  solid  rock,  a very  strong  pile  and  timber  apron  is  proposed, 


APPENDIX  V. 


747 


extending  20  feet  below  the  dam.  The  plan  of  foundations  and  apron  will  he  shown 
on  the  general  drawings  to  accompany  this  report. 

The  detailed  estimates  for  this  improvement  were  forwarded  to  you  on  the  9th 
instant.  A summary  is  given  in  the  following  table,  with  location,  lift  of  lock,  length 
of  dams,  &c.  : 


Number  from 
Great  Falls. 

Location. 

> 

Distance  from 
Great  Falls. 

Distance  from 
mouth  of  riv- 
er. 

Lift  of  lock. 

Length  of  dam  j 

1 

1 

Character  of  1 

foundation,  j 

! 

Estimated  cost. 

Miles. 

Miles. 

Feet. 

Feet. 

1 

Near  head  of  Loup  Creek  Shoal  

3.  34 

90.  86 

9.  6 

660 

Rock 

$174,  931 

2 

Near  foot  of  T.nnp  Creek  Shoal 

4.  67 

89.  53 

10.  4 

785 

Rock 

213, 105 

3 

Foot  of  Lykens  Shoals,  at  Cannelton 

9. 19 

85.01 

13 

676 

Artificial.. 

272,  459 

4 

Foot  of  Paint  Creek  Shoal 

15.  12 

79.  OS 

13 

579 

Artificial.. 

257, 546 

5 

Brown stovpn,  near  head  of  Charleston  Pool.. 

26.  84 

67.  36 

13 

548 

Rock 

219, 940 

6 

First  below  Charleston  Pool,  head  of  Island 

39.  69 

54.  51 

7 

544 

Artificial.. 

218,  573 

Shoal. 

7 

Near  head  of  Newcomer  Shoal 

43.  22 

50.  98 

6.5 

563 

Artificial.. 

220,142 

8 

Between  Seary  and  .Tnhnsnn  Shoals.. 

52.  46 

41.  74 

7 

598 

Rock 

182,  644 

9 

Hea,d  of  Red  House  Shoal  

61.  77 

32.  43 

6.  5 

670 

Rock 

191,  067 

10 

Near  foot  of  Gillespie’s  Ripple  ... 

67.  36 

26.  84 

6 

590 

Rock 

164, 187 

11 

Head  of  Hobby’s  Ripple. 

75.  02 

19. 18 

7 

558 

Rock 

170,  340 

12 

Foot  of  Three-Mile  or  Cantrell’s  Bar 

92.  40 

1.  80 

8.7 

697 

Artificial.. 

244,  442 

Total  for  leeks  and  dams 

2,  529,  376 

Estimate  for  excavation  of  channels  anti  approaches  to  lochs 

268,  000 

2,  797,37) 

10  Tier  oent.  for  onutin  oTfineips .. 

279, 737 

Total  estimate 

3,  077,  113 

IMPROVEMENT  BY  MOVABLE  DAMS,  AS  PROPOSED  FOR  THE  OHIO  RIVER. 

For  a description  of  these  dams,  it  is  only  necessary  to  refer  to  the  elaborate  report  of 
the  Board  of  Engineers  on  Movable  Dams,  &c.,  consisting  of  General  Weitzel  and  Colo- 
nel Merrill,  (Ex.  Doc.  No.  127,  H.  of  R,,  43d  Congress,  1st  session,)  and  to  Colonel  Mer- 
rilPs  annual  report,  printed  as  Appendix  N of  the  Report  of  the  Chief  of  Engineers  for 
1874.  As  shown  in  these  reports,  this  modification  of  the  common  slack-water  plan  is 
designed  particularly  to  accommodate  the  coal-trade,  and  you  directed  me  to  extend 
the  estimate  for  it  as  high  up  the  river  as  this  interest  seemed  to  require.  In  view  of 
the  importance  of  this  interest  and  the  great  advantages  of  movable  dams  to  suit  it, 
it  was  thought  advisable,  in  planning  for  the  ordinary  improvement,  to  do  so  with  ref- 
erecce  to  their  final  adoption  below  Charleston.  Accordingly  the  maximum  lift  for 
the  locks  in  this  part  of  the  river  was  taken,  as  by  Colonel  Merril  for  the  Ohio,  at  7 
feet.  This  would  virtually  extend  the  movable  system  to  Brownstown,  at  the  head  of 
the  Charleston  Pool,  and  though  the  coal-field  extends  still  higher,  the  arrangement  it 
is  thought  would  accommodate  the  whole  interest  very  well,  as  there  would  be  at 
most  but  two  lockages  to  get  the  coal  into  the  Charleston  Poo),  where  there  would  he 
every  facility  for  harboring  it  and  for  making  up  tows.  If  it  should  ever  be  found  de- 
sirable to  extend  the  movable  dams  as  high  up  as  Cannelton,  at  the  foot  of  Lykens 
Shoal,  it  could  be  done  by  building  two  intermediate  locks  and  dividing  the  lifts  of 
Nos.  5 and  6. 

This  arrangement  makes  the  number  of  locks  the  same  as  proposed  by  Mr.  Lorraine 
in  his  report  to  yon,  and  also  as  recommended  by  Mr.  John  A.  Byers  in  186H,  when  he 
made  a general  estimate  for  a lock  and  dam  improvement  below  Loup  Creek.  It  adds 
one  to  the  number  of  locks  below'  Charleston,  however,  and  reduces  the  number  above 
to  five.  The  advisability  of  the  high  darns  proposed  at  Paint  Creek  and  Brow'nstown, 
particularly  at  the  latter  place,  is  somewhat  questionable,  but  they  are  no  higher  than 
some  on  the  Monongahela  River,  where  the  height  of  banks  and  general  characteris- 
tics fire  similar,  and  as  the  arrangement  is  quite  desirable  I conclude,  to  lecommeud 
them. 

In  the  table  the  lift  of  lock  No.  12  is  given  at  8'. 70  ; this  is  with  reference  to  present 
low-water  at  the  mouth  of  the  river.  It  will  finally  depend  on  the  connection  made 
with  the  lock  and  dam  system  projected  on  the  Ohio.  Colonel  Merrill  informed  me 
that  he  could/give  no  definite  information  about  it,  but  thought  there  would  be  no 
difficulty  in  adopting  their  plan  to  suit  any  arrangement  on  the  Kanawha.  The  low> 
water  surface  at  the  mouth  can  easily  be  raised  enough  to  reduce  the  lift  of  No.  12  to 
7 feet ; and  if  it  should  j)rove  expedient  to  raise  it  about  3^  feet,  the  first  lock  on  Ka- 


748 


REPORT  OF  THE  CHIEF  OF  ENGINEERS. 


nawha  can  be  located  at  tbe  foot  of  Thirteen-Mile  Shoal,  where  rock-foundation  can  be 
had. 

A summary  of  the  estimate  for  the  complete  improvement  by  movable  dams  below 
and  permanent  dams  above  Charleston,  with  locks  280  by  50  feet,  is  submitted.  That 
for  the  movable  dams  is  based  on  the  price  per  linear  foot  taken  by  Colonel  Merrill  for 
the  Ohio,  (Appendix  N,  Report  of  the  Chief  of  Engineers  for  1874.)  The  details  are 
given  in  the  same  (N  9)  in  Lieut.  F.  A.  Mahan’s  report  on  the  Youghiogheny  River. 

The  width  of  “pass”  proposed  for  the  Ohio  has  also  been  adopted,  as  it  has  been 
found  necessary  to  make  the  present  towing  channels  on  Kanawha  about  250  feet  wide, 
to  answer  the  requirements  of  the  coal-trade. 


Number  of  dam  from 
Great  Falls. 

Number  of  dam  from 
Charleston. 

Location  of  dams. 

Distance  from  Great 
Falls  in  miles. 

Length  of  pass  in  feet. 

Cost  per  linear  foot. 

Estimate  for  pass. 

Length  of  weir  in  feet. 

Cost  per  linear  foot. 

Estimate  fur  weir. 

Total  length  of  dams. 

Total  coat. 

6 

1 

Head  of  Island  Shoal 

39.  69 

250 

$344 

$86,  000 

294 

$227 

$66,  738 

544 

$152,  738 

7 

2 

Near  head  of  New  Comer  Shoal. . 

43.  22 

' 2.50 

341 

86,  000 

313 

227 

71,  0.51 

563 

157,  051 

8 

3 

Between  Scary  and  Johnson’s 

52.  46 

250 

344 

86,  000 

348 

227 

78,  996 

598 

164,  996 

Shoal. 

9 

4 

Head  of  Red-House  Shoal  

61.77 

250 

344 

86,  000 

420 

227 

95,  340 

670 

181,  340 

10 

5 

Near  foot  of  Gillespie’s  Ripple. . . 

67.  36 

250 

344 

86,  000 

340 

227 

77, 180 

590 

163, 180 

11 

6 

! Head  of  Debby’s  Ripple 

75.  02 

250 

344 

86.  000 

308 

227 

69,916 

558 

155,  916 

1-2 

1’, 

Foot  of  Three-Mile  Bar 

92.  40 

25( 

344 

86,  000 

447 

227 

101,  469 

697 

187,  469 

602,  000 

560,  690 

n’ntn.l  for  movalde  dams 

1, 162,  690 

Locks  and  abutments,  as  shown  in  estimate  for  slack-water  throughout . . 

971,  496 

Total  cost  of  movable-dam  improvement  below  Charleston 

2, 134, 186 

Estimate  for  five  locks  and  permanent  dams  above  Charleston  Pool  . 

1, 137,  981 

Estimate  for  excavation  of  channels  and  approaches  to  locks 

268,  000 

3,  540, 167 

Add  10  ner  cent,  for  contingencies . 

354,  016 

Total  estimate 

3,  894, 183 

In  regard  to  the  relative  merits  of  the  two  plans  of  improvement,  (not  to  consider 
the  movable  dams,)  I believe  the  slack- water  can  be  much  more  confidently  recom- 
mended. There  are  elements  of  uncertainty  connected  with  the  plan  for  open  navi- 
gation ; and  it  is  thought,  with  every  condition  realized,  it  would  have  no  advantages 
over  locks  and  dams.  The  sluices  are  not  more  than  half  wide  enough  to  answer  the 
requirements  of  open  navigation,  and  it  appears  they  cannot  be  made  much  wider 
than  planned,  (120  and  94  feet,)  if  dependence  is  based  on  the  one  reservoir.  This  is 
about  the  width  of  the  present  “dug  chutes”  on  the  river,  and,  in  stages  w'hen  the 
navigation  is  confined  to  them,  experience  has  limited  descending  tows  to  two  and 
never  more  than  three  loaded  barges.  The  great  difficulty  anticipated,  however,  is  to 
ascending  craft.  No  form  of  sluice  can  obviate  the  unpleasant  currents  to  be  encoun- 
tered in  entering  and  passing  them,  and  in  the  night  or  windy  weather,  particularly 
in  certain  stages  of  water,  this  would  be  rendered  more  or  less  dangerous. 

Mr.  W.  R.  Hutton,  in  his  report  to  you  dated  January,  lii71,  alludes  to  the  resistance 
to  a tow  of  loaded  boats  passing  the  sluices  up-stream,  and  says  they  would  necessitate 
some  modification  of  the  present  system  of  towing.  If  the  tows  should  be  limited  to  the 
size  that  could  enter  the  locks  proposed,  (three  barges  and  a tug)  it  is  thought  120 
sluices  would  cause  much  more  trouble  and  delay  than  the  eight  locks  proposed  in  the 
same  distance.  In  addition  to  these  objections,  and  the  uncertainties  of  realizing 
every  condition  of  a theoretical  plan,  there  is  an  element  of  danger  connected  with  a 
reservoir  of  the  dimensions  jjroposed,  formed  by  a dam  nearly  70  feet  high,  which 
should  not  be  ignored. 

From  past  reports  it  appears  that  a jdan  of  open  improvement  has  been  sought  for 
two  principal  reasons,  one  being  the  local  objection  to  slack-water  improvement,  the 
other  the  incidental  assistance  which  the  reservoir  would  render  to  the  Ohio.  I think 
it  may  be  said  that  neither  of  these  reasons  now  demand  consideration,  for  the  people 
of  Kanawha  are  almost  without  exception  in  favor  of  locks  and  dams,  and  it  is  gen- 
erally conceded  that  the  same  system,  or  some  modification  of  it,  must  be  resorted  to 
on  the  Ohio.  Pains  have  been  taken  to  learn  the  sentiment  of  river-men,  who  are 


APPENDIX  V. 


74D 


generally  familiar  with  this  plan  from  observation  of  the  Monongahel a slack-water^ 
and  they  are  found  universally  anxious  to  have  it  adopted  on  the  Kanawha. 

If  the  movable  dams,  so  confidently  and  ably  recommended  for  the  Ohio,  should 
prove  successful,  they  would  remove  almost  every  possible  objection  to  the  slack-water 
improvement. 

Very  respectfully,  ycnr  obedient  servant, 

A.  M.  Scott, 
Assistant  Engineer. 

Col.  W.  P.  Cl{AIGTlILT, 

Major  Corps  of  Engineers,  U.  S.  A. 


REPORT  ON  IMPROVEMENT  OF  GREAT  KANAWHA  RIVER  P.Y  MEANS  OF  LOCKS  AND  DAMS,. 

RV  MR.  WM.  R.  HUTTON. 

Baltimore,  Md.,  Jane  30,  1870. 

Sir  : The  project  for  the  permanent  improvement  of  the  Kanawha  River  as  recom- 
mended by  the  Board  of  Engineers  on  the  ‘i5th  of  May,  lh75,  (see  page  94,  j)art  2, 
Re})ort  of  Chief  of  Engineers  for  1875,)  has  for  its  object  to  furnish  a navigable  depth 
of  7 feet  at  all  seasons  of  the  year,  from  the  mouth  of  the  river  to  the  falls.  It  pro- 
poses to  accomplish  this  by  means  of  nine  locks  of  low  lift,  with  movable  dams,  fiotu 
the  mouth  to  the  foot  of  Paint  Creek  Shoal,  which  is  15  miles  below  the  falls,  these  15 
miles  being  improved  by  three  locks  of  15  feet  lift  each,  connected  with  iiermanent darns. 

The  project  is  based  upon  the  very  complete  surveys  made  in  1858  by  Mr.  John  A. 
Byers,  and  special  preliminary  surveys  of  the  different  sites  selected  fbr  permanent 
works  made  under  your  direction  by  Mr.  A.  M.  Scott  in  1873,  1874,  and  1875. 

In  1873  the  low-water  surface  of  each  jiool  was  observed,  and  referred  to  a proper 
permanent  bench-mark,  the  surface  of  Charleston  Pool  reading  1.50  on  the  gauge-board 
at  that  jdace.  This  has  been  adopted  as  standard  low  water,  although  in  1874  the  sur- 
face of  the  pool  was  0.2  foot  lower.  In  1875,  an  accurate  survey  was  made  from  Cabin 
Creek  Shoal  to  a point  2^  miles  below  Brownstown,  and  a line  of  careful  levels  was 
run  from  the  Falls  to  Newcomer’s  Shoal,  7 miles  below  Charleston. 

The  only  recorded  gauges  of  the  discharge  of  the  river  made  before  last  year  were 
those  of  Mr.  Ellet.  During  1875,  twelve  gaugings  were  made  by  Mr.  Scott  at  the  site 
of  lock  No.  5,  8|  miles  above  Charleston,  at  various  stages,  ranging  from  1.55  feet  to  32 
feet  above  low-water.  The  river  was  very  full  during  the  entire  season,  and  at  no  titoe 
did  it  fall  to  low-water  mark. 

The  river  is  fully  described,  as  to  its  general  characteristics,  by  Mr.  Lorraine,  in  his 
report  to  you  of  December  9, 1872,  (see  page  836,  Report  of  Chief  of  Engineers  for  1873.) 
I recapitulate  the  principal  features.  The  length  from  the  Falls  to  the  Ohio  River  is 
94  miles  ; total  fall  from  the  pool  at  the  foot  of  the  Great  Falls  is  108  feet,  47  feet  of 
which  occurs  in  the  first  15  miles.  The  average  width  is  590  feet.  During  low  water 
it  is  navigable  from  the  upper  end  of  Charleston  Pool  to  the  mouth  by  steamers  draw- 
ing 3 feet.  Above  Charleston  Pool,  there  is  no  navigation  at  low  stages,  although 
some  improvements  have  been  made  in  the  way  of  sluices  and  training-walls,  which 
are  valuable  to  navigation  at  moderate  stages.  Coal  is  not  shipped,  however,  until 
the  river  rises  5 or  6 feet  at  Charleston. 

Ordinary  floods  rise  to  25  or  30  feet  above  low  water  in  the  upper  half  of  the  river, 
which  here  does  not  overflow  the  general  level  of  its  banks.  The  highest  flood  on 
record,  that  of  1861,  rose  to  47  feet. 

Extreme  low-water  discharge,  according  to  Mr.  Ellet,  is  1,100  cubic  feet  per  second; 
ordinary  low  water,  about  1,300  cubic  feet.  Comparing  the  Kanawha  with  the  Seine, 
which  has  been  improved  with  movable  dams,  the  low-water  discharge  of  the  Seine  is 
1,700  cubic  feet  per  second,  that  of  the  Kanawha  being  1,350  (rarely  1,100)  cubic  feet. 
The  maximum  flood  of  the  Seine  (anno  1658)  rose  29.3  feet;  of  the  Kanawha,  47  feet 
in  September,  1861,  at  Charleston  above  (0)  of  gauge,  which  is  45^  above  low  water. 
Ordinary  high  floods  of  the  Seine  20.5  feet,  with  a discharge  of  .56,000  cubic  feet ; of 
the  Kanawha,  36  feet,  discharging  probably  132,000  feet.  The  low-water  slope  of  the 
Seine  above  Paris  is  0.5  foot  per  mile ; of  the  Kanawha  below  Paint  Creek,  0.8  foot 
per  mile. 

Although  the  Kanawha  is  not  navigable  at  low  stages,  there  is  no  flood  in  which 
boats  do  not  run.  In  this  it  differs  from  the  Seine,  where  navigation  ceases  when  the 
flood  exceeds  10  or  12  feet. 

As  has  been  already  mentioned,  the  project  for  the  improvement  embraces  the  con- 
struction of  nine  locks  with  movable  dams,  and  three  locks  w ith  permanent  dams. 
The  greater  slope  above  the  foot  of  Paint  Creek  Shoal  renders  it  inexpedient  to  con- 
tinue the  improvement  by  movable  dams  above  that  point. 

The  movable  dam,  which  has  led  to  the  recent  great  development  of  the  interior 


750 


REPORT  OF  THE  CHIEF  OF  ENGINEERS. 


navigation  of  France,  is  fully  described  and  figured  in  tbe  report  of  Weitzel  and  Mer- 
rill, upon  “ Hydraulic  Gates  and  Dams,”  (see  page  638,  part  1,  Report  of  Chief  of  En- 
gineers for  1875.)  Its  object  is  to  permit  an. open  river  navigation  whenever  the  natural 
depth  of  the  water  is  sufficient,  and  to  furnish  a navigation  by  locks  and  dams  during 
low  stages  of  the  river.  The  navigation  pass  or  sluice,  in  the  present  project  250  feet 
in  width,  is  an  opening  in  the  dam,  with  its  sill  about  the  level  of  the  bottom  of  the 
river.  It  is  furnished  with  wickets,  which  may  be  raised  to  close  it  to  the  full  height 
of  the  dam,  and  which  lie  flat  upon  the  floor  when  tbe  pass  is  open.  The  fixed  portion 
of  the  dam  is  usually  provided  with  wickets  of  a less  heigiit,  to  regulate  the  water  in 
the  pool,  and  to  facilitate  opening  and  closing  the  wickets  of  the  pass.  Their  use  is 
not  contemplated  in  the  original  project,  but  further  study  indicates  the  substantial 
advantages  which  would  follow  their  introduction. 

Good  river  navigation  above  Charleston  requires  at  least  a stage  of  6 feet  on  Charles- 
ton gauge.  With  this  height  there  is  a rise  of  about  5.5  feet  at  lock  No.  5 ; so  that 
with  the  sill  of  the  pass  placed  one  foot  above  bottom,  we  have  8.5  feet  of  water  in  the 
pass.  With  6 feet  on  Charleston  gauge,  the  discharge  of  the  river  is  about  12,000  cubic 
feet,  giving  a velocity  in  the  pass  of  about  4. .5,  or  a height  on  the  dam,  if  closed,  of  3.06 
feet.  As  the  water  rises,  we  have,  with  a depth  of  10  feet  in  the  pass,  a velocity  of  4.8 
feet ; with  12  feet,  5.8  feet  per  second  ; and  when  the  pass  is  full,  but  none  discharging 
over  the  weir,  (supposed  without  wickets,)  6.4  feet,  or  about  4^  miles  per  hour,  the 
lock-gates  also  being  open  for  the  passage  of  the  stream.  To  diminish  these  velocities, 
as  well  as  to  reduce  the  maximum  height  of  the  sheet  flowing  over  the  wickets  of  the 
pass,  which  will  permit  a reduction  of  their  strength  and  weight,  the  dam  might  be 
finished  at  4 feet  below  the  level  of  the  pool,  and  furnished  with  wickets  of  that  height. 
These  will  be  comparatively  inexpensive;  being  low,  they  may  be  wide,  say  6 feet  at 
least,  and  they  will  need  no  slide  or  tripping-bar.  Reference  is  intended  to  the  wick- 
ets of  the  Chanoine  system,  which  should  be  preferred  on  account  of  their  cheapness. 
The  Desfontaines  system  is  more  convenient,  but  the  first  cost  is  much  greater. 

The  surveys  of  the  past  season  have  enabled  definite  locations  to  be  made  for  locks 
and  dams  Nos.  4 and  5.  the  former  at  the  foot  of  Cabin  Creek  Shoal,  and  the  latter 
about  a mile  below  Brownstowu,  near  the  head  of  Charleston  Pool.  Lands  have  been 
purchased  at  both  sites,  and  both  locks  are  under  contract,  as  well  as  the  dam  at  No.  5. 

The  surveys  have  also  developed  the  fact  that  the  river-bed  is  underlaid  at  no  great 
depth  by  a ledge  of  rocks  lying  nearly  parallel  to  the  general  slope  of  the  river.  Its 
continuity  is  not  perfect;  but  it  is  so  general  that  we  may  reasonably  expect  to  find 
suitable  locations  for  all  the  works,  where  they  may  be  founded  upon  the  rock. 

The  levels  that  have  been  taken  show  the  changes  that  have  occurred  in  the  height 
of  surface  of  the  pools  in  the  past  twenty  years.  The  improvement  of  the  bars  by  in- 
creasing the  water-way  through  them,  increasing  their  depth,  at  the  same  time  lowers 
the  surface  of  the  pool  above  it.  Thus,  Charleston  Pool  has  been  lowered  nearly  2 feet 
bv  th«  great  improvements  to  the  channel  at  Elk  Shoal;  and  the  same  effect  is  observed 
at  other  points. 

tr.  As  a type  of  the  low  lock  and  movable  dam,  a description  is  introduced  of  No.  5,  at 
Brownstown,  some  eight  miles  above  Charleston,  now  under  construction.  The  lock, 
Avhich  is  364  feet  in  toral  length,  300  feet  between  hollow  quoins,  and  50  feet  in  clear 
width,  is  designed  to  pass  at  one  lockage  four  coal-barges  of  the  dimensions  usual  on 
the  Ohio  and  Kanawha  Rivers  ; that  is,  130  feet  long,  24  feet  wide,  and  drawing  6 feet 
of  water.  It  is  placed  in  the  river  as  near  to  its  left  bank  as  practicable,  while  giving 
a good  entrance  and  exit  for  boats.  The  dam,  about  560  feet  long,  crosses  the  river  at 
right  angles  to  its  direction,  opposite  the  lower  abutment,  with  a height  from  the  rock 
of  about  17  feet,  and  will  raise  the  water  nearly  11  feet  above  low  water.  The  pass 
adjoins  the  lock,  is  250  feet  wide,  and  its  floor  is  50  feet  long  in  the  direction  of  the 
stream.  The  pier  which  separates  the  pass  from  the  river  is  13.5  feet  wide,  48  feet  long, 
and  4 feet  higher  than  the  dacn.  The  right  bank  of  the  river  is  protected  by  a masonry 
abutment  rising  10  feet  above  the  dam,  with  wings  extending  to  the  top  of  the  bank, 
above  the  reach  of  overflow. 

The  lock- walls  will  rest  upon  the  rock,  which  at  this  point  is  between  3 and  4 feet  lower 
than  the  miter-sills.  At  the  ends  (the  abutments  for  the  gates)  they  will  have  a thick- 
ness of  16  feet ; the  interior  faces  will  batter  one-fourth  of  an  inch  to  the  foot ; the  ex- 
terior faces  will  be  vertical  on  the  river  side,  while, the  backs  of  the  shore-wall  will 
batter  2 inches  to  the  foot.  Between  the  ends  or  abutments,  the  chamber- walls  are  12 
feet  thick  at  bottom  of  lock  and  5 feet  at  top,  the  whole  height  being  20  feet,  depth  of 
water  7 feet,  and  lift  of  the  lock  7 feet.  The  top  of  the  look  is  therefore  6 feet  above 
the  top  of  the  dam. 

The  upper  and  lower  miter-sills  are  placed  at  the  same  level,  so  that,  by  opening  all 
the  gates,  the  lock  may  serve  as  an  extension  of  the  pass.  The  miter-sills  are  of  stone 
faced  with  timber ; the  floor  of  the  lock  is  of  concrete  covered  with  plank,  «s:cept  a 
space  below  each  gate,  which  is  paved  with  dressed  stone.  The  angles,  hollow-quoins, 
miter-sills,  coping,  &c.,  are  of  cut  stone ; the  rest  of  the  masonry  will  be  of  a much 
cheaper  class,  although  not  inferior  in  fitness,  strength,  and  durability ; all  to  be  laid 


APPENDIX  V. 


751 


in  the  best  manner  in  hydraulic  cement.  The  chamber-walls  will  be  furnished  with 
rings  for  the  purpose  of  securing  boats.  The  locks  will  be  hlled  and  emptied  through 
valves  in  the  gates,  in  addition  to  iron  culvert-pipes  passing  around  the  hollow  quoins. 
It  is  proposed  to  build  the  gates  of  iron  frames,  covered  with  a sheathing  of  plank. 

In  the  lower  abutment  on  the  river-side  is  a well  containing  tlie  gearing  for  tripping 
or  throwing  down  the  wickets  of  the  navigation  pass.  This,  as  well  as  the  chain 
wells  and  gearing  for  operating  the  gates,  is  contained  below  the  surface  of  the  coi)iug 
and  covered  by  iron  plates  ; for,  as  the  lock  will  be  submerged  in  tloods,  it  is  necessary 
that  no  machinery  or  framing  should  be  exposed  on  top  of  the  walls. 

The  floor  of  the  pass  is  about  3 feet  above  the  rock  foundation.  It  is  formed  of  con- 
crete, supported  front  and  rear  by  timbers  framed  into  crib-work  ; the  top  is  furnished 
with  large  timbers  arranged  to  hold  the  journals,  slides,  &.C.,  which  are  attached  to 
them,  and  paved  between  the  timbers  with  stone. 

The  wicket  is  a wooden  frame  13  feet  6 inches  high  and  3 feet  8 inches  wide,  covered 
with  planks,  and  capable  of  revolving  about  an  axis  placed  at  the  middle  of  its  height. 
This  axis  is  formed  by  the  cross-head  of  an  iron  frame  or  horse,  which  is  itself  movable 
about  a horizontal  axis  fixed  upon  the  floor. 

When  a wicket  is  raised,  its  foot  rests  against  the  sill  of  the  floor;  its  horse  is  main- 
tained vertical  by  an  iron  prop,  the  foot  of  which  abuts  against  a heurter,  an  iron 
abutting  piece  fastened  to  the  floor. 

The  wickets,  being  placed  side  by  side  across  the  current,  form  when  raised  a dam 
to  close  the  pass.  A movable  foot-bridge  is  constructed  up-stream,  across  tbe  pass,  to 
facilitate  the  operations  of  opening.  To  throw  down  or  open  a wicket,  it  is  necessary 
to  pull  sidewise  the  foot  of  the  prop,  so  that  it  shall  slide  across  and  clear  of  the  foot 
of  the  heurter.  The  prop,  having  lost  it  support,  slides  upon  the  floor  down-stream; 
the  horse  at  the  same  time  turns  about  its  axis  and  falls  upon  the  floor ; the  wicket 
follows  them,  and  covers  and  protects  the  other  pieces. 

If  there  were  no  water  upon  the  floor,  the  wicket  would  be  broken  by  the  fall,  but  a 
very  shallow  cushion  of  water  is  sufficient,  in  a great  measure,  to  destroy  the  shock. 

The  foot  of  the  prop  is  pulled  away  from  the  heurter  by  means  of  the  tripping-bar, 
one  end  of  which  carries  a rack,  gearing  into  a pinion  in  the  well  in  the  lock- wall, 
worked  by  a crank  on  top. 

To  raise  the  wicket,  the  lock-keeper  stands  upon  the  foot-bridge,  and  by  means  of  a 
portable  winch  pulls  up  a chain  attached  to  the  foot  of  the  wicket.  The  wicket  rises, 
maintaining,  however,  a position  nearly  horizontal.  It  offers,  therefore,  but  little 
resistance  to  the  current.  The  horse  and  the  prop  follow  its  ascent  until  the  foot  of  the 
latter,  passing  over  the  inclined  plane,  which  forms  the  top  of  the  heurter,  falls  in 
front  of  it,  at  the  same  time  that  the  horse  attains  a vertical  position ; the  axis  of  the 
wicket  is  now  in  its  final  position,  and  a slight  push  on  the  foot  of  it,  or  even  the  slack- 
ing of  the  chain,  is  enough  to  cause  it  to  right  itself  and  bear  its  foot  against  the  sill. 

The  three  upper  locks  will  be  connected  with  fixed  or  permanent  darns,  and  will  be 
founded  upon  the  rock.  The  upper  miter-sills  will  rest  upon  breast-walls,  through 
Avhich  the  filling-culverts  will  discharge.  The  dams  will  be  of  masonry,  with  aprons 
of  crib-work  filled  with  concrete  to  protect  from  scour  the  soft  rock  of  the  foundation. 
The  head-walls  of  the  lock  will  be  carried  up  to  a sufficient  height  to  permit  their  being 
used  in  moderate  floods. 

The  locks,  with  movable  dams,  will  generally  be  founded  upon  the  rock.  They  have 
no  breast-walls,  but  both  ends  of  the  lock  are  upon  the  same  level,  so  that  it  may  be 
used  for  purposes  of  navigation  when  the  pass  is  open.  The  walls  extend  but  6 feet 
above  the  dam,  and  will  be  submerged  in  floods. 

When  rock  foundations  cannot  be  obtained  at  moderate  depths,  both  lock  and  dam 
will  be  built  upon  piles.  The  floor  of  the  lock  will  be  an  inverted  arch  to  withstand 
the  upward  pressure  of  the  water;  the  floor  of  the  pass  will  be  a heavy  bed  of  concrete 
on  piling,  and  filtration  will  be  prevented  by  rows  of  sheet-piling  and  cross-walls  of 
concrete. 

The  cost  of  completing  the  improvement  on  the  present  plan  is  estimated,  after 
careful  revision,  at  $4,132,500.  But  it  is  proper  to  add  that  the  work  now  under  con- 
tract has  been  let  at  prices  very  much  below  those  used  in  the  estimate. 

Kespectfully^ 

W.Ai.  K.  Hutton. 

Col.  Wm.  P.  Craighill, 

Major  of  Engineers,  U.  S.  A. 


COMMUNICATION  TO  THE  riTTSlJURGII  COM^MERCIAL  RELATIVE  TO  THE  OHIO  RIVER 

IMPROVEMENT. 

To  the  Editor  of  the  Pittsburgh  Commercial : 

Great  public  improvements  are  rarely  accomplished  without  violent  opposition,  and 
strange  as  it  may  seem,  the  most  strenuous  opponents  are  usually  those  who  in  the  end 


752 


REPORT  OF  THE  CHIEF  OP  ENGINEERS. 


derive  the  grf  at^’Ht  heuefit  from  the  measures  they  oppose.  When  agricultural  imple- 
ments began  to  be  introduced,  farm  laborers,  led  by  farmers,  destroyed  the  machines 
and  held  public  meetings  to  denounce  whoever  favored  their  introduction.  Planing- 
mills  were  opposed  by  the  torch  of  the  incendiary.  Canals,  when  projected,  have  been 
denounced  by  wagoners,  and  railroads,  in  their  turn,  by  the  canal-men  and  their 
associated  interests.  Railroads  have  been  threatened  with  annihilation  lest  they  might 
destroy  the  market  for  horse-feed,  or  carry  fright  and  death  among  the  farmers’  herds. 

It  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  the  obstructives  and  croakers  in  such  cases  are  con- 
sciously instigated  by  bad  motives;  on  the  contrary,  a majority  of  them  sincerely  be- 
lieve their  rights  and  living  endangered.  In  most  cases  they  are  blinded  by  the  ex- 
travagant dtclamations  of  a few  over-confident  and  mistaken  leaders,  whose  wild 
assertions  and  groundless  predictions  they  mistake  for  facts  and  arguments. 

THE  MONONGAHELA  NAVIGATION 

was  built  in  the  face  of  bitter  opposition  from  the  flatboat-men  and  farmers  along 
shore.  “It  is  a rt markable  tact,”  says  one  of  the  early  reports,  “that  with  so  many 
unanswerable  arguments  to  recommend  it  to  and  enforce  it  upon  the  public  attention, 
no  work  in  the  country  has  ever  encountered  greater  obstacles  than  this.  Instead  of 
being,  as  it  ought  to  have  been,  fostered  by  our  citizens,  and  hailed  by  the  Mononga- 
hela  Valley  as  a blessing  to  themselves,  it  met  with  nothing  but  the  most  chilling  re- 
gards from  the  one  or  the  most  determined  hostility  from  the  other.” 

It  was  declared  that  the  obstructions  and  tolls  would  extinguish 


THE  COAL-TRADE 

and  destroy  the  value  of  coal-lands,  and  insutferable  delays  and  expenses  caused  by  the 
locks  would  ruin  the  river  tor  steamers.  As  the  result  of  the  improvement  the  coal- 
trade  has  increased  since  its  construction  from  400,000  bushels  to  03,707,500  bushels, 
and  the  increased  value  of  the  lands  has  been  many  times  more  than  the  entire  cost  of 
improvement.  As  to  delays  to  steamers  on  account  of  the  locks,  Capt.  E,  Bennett,  the 
most  experienced  boatman  on  the  river  said,  “ The  time  of  running  the  fifty-five  miles, 
including  the  passing  of  the  four  locks,  varies  from  five  and  one-quarter  to  six  hours 
(9  to  10.^  miles  an  hour,  including  the  delays,)  by  different  boats,”  not  including  stop- 
i)ages  for  freight  and  passengers. 

* ^ * -Jf  # 

“I  do  not  recollect  coming  up  from  Pittsburgh  to  Brownsville  before  the  completion 
of  the  slack-water  in  le^s  than  twelve  hours,  and  frequently  from  twenty  to  twenty- 
four.”  The  uniform  depth  and  the  absence  of  current  far  more  than  compensate  for 
the  delays  of  the  locks. 

COLONEL  Merrill’s  plan. 

The  plan  for  the  improvement  of  the  Ohio  is  the  result  of  30  years’  additional  study 
and  experience  of  the  best  engineers  of  the  world,  and  is  infinitely  superior  to  the 
Monongahela  navigation  ; nevertheless,  opposition  is  the  fate  of  every  improvement 
and  must  be  encountered  and  overcome  by  this  one  also. 

We  could  hardly  expect  the  owners  of  an  $80,000  tow-boat  to  be  pleased  at  first 
blush  with  an  improvement  which  will  enable  a $4,000  or  $5,000  tug  with  its  barges 
by  running  safely  all  the  year  round,  carrying  coal  down  and  freight  up,  to  be  a suc- 
cessful competitor,  and  this  is  one  of  the  results  anticipated  from  the  improvement. 

A memorial  to  Congress,  which  I have  seen  to-day,  states  that  only  one  interest  of 
the  vast  commerce  of  the  Ohio  is  opposed  to  the  improvement,  and  that  only  in  x)art. 
Having  knowledge  that  some  of  the  parties  are  in  opposition  only  from  a misunder- 
standing of  the  subject,  let  mo  endeavor  to  describe  the  plans  and  manner  of  working 
as  they  present  theniselves  to  my  mind,  and  their  effect  upon  navigation. 

1.  A lock  is  to  be  erected  on  one  side  of  the  river,  the  outer  wall  of  which  will  be  770 
feet  long,  parallel  with  the  current,  and  forming  one  side  of  the  navigation-pass. 

2.  Opposite  to  the  middle  of  the  lock,  extending  out  from  the  other  side  of  the 
river,  is  a permanent  dam  or  weir  of  a proper'  height,  which  reaches  a point  400  fe-t 
from  the  wall,  leaving  a channel  or  navigation-pass  between  the  dam  and  the  wall  400 
feet  wide  and  as.deep  as  the  present  river-bed. 

3.  The  navigation-pass  has  a system  of  gates  or  wickets  capable  of  being  raised  so 
as  to  close  it  when  it  becomes  necessary  to  convert  the  navigation  into  slack-water. 

4.  In  order  that  the  permanent  part  of  the  dam  may  make  the  least  possible  ob- 
struction to  the  water  in  times  of  unusual  floods,  and  that  it  may  be  used  in  regulating 
the  depth  in  the  navigable  pass,  it  is  made  very  low  and  capable  of  being  increased  in 
height  when  needed  by  a similar  arrangement  of  wickets. 

Thus  in  all  high  and  moderate  stages  of  water  there  will  be  a clear  unobstructed 
channel  400  feet  wide.  When  the  water  has  fallen  below  the  minimum  depth  fixed 
upon  for  the  navigation — say  C feet — the  wickets  in  the  pass  will  be  raised,  and  there 
will  be  until  the  next  rise  a slack-water  navigation  in  the  river. 


APPENDIX  V.  753 

The  locks  will  be  639  by  78  feet  iaside,  and  will  pass  tea  coal-barges,  with  large  tow- 
boat and  fuel  flat,  at  one  lockage. 

This  method  has  been  in  successfal  operation 

ON  THE  SEINE 

and  other  French  rivers  for  years  without  any  serious  accident  or  failure.  There  are 
navigation-passes  on  the  Seine  230  feet  wide  and  looks  615  by  40  fliet.  The  barges  on 
the  Seine  are  about  the  size  of  those  on  the  Ohio,  though  the  fleets  are  somewhat 
smaller.  The  Ohio  being  a larger  stream,  bearing  larger  fleets,  the  navigable  passes 
and  locks  are  correspondingly  enlarged ; and  this  being  the  only  difference  from  the 
plan  in  successful  operation,  to  assert  that  ‘‘it  will  not  work”  is  simply  a waste  of 
words. 

The  width  of  the  open  navigable  pass  is  only  120  feet  less  than  that  of  the  pass  now 
being  constructed  at  the  mouth  of  the  Mississippi  River,  and  is  100  feet  wider  than  the 
ch-innel  between  the  piers  of  the  Steubenville  bridge.  It  is  320  feet  wider  than  an 
average  coal-fleet,  nt  arly  300  feet  wider  than  the  widest  and  nearly  double  the  width 
of  the  present  wing-dam  channels  which  they  will  supersede. 

The  operation  of  this 

SYSTEM  UPON  THE  OHIO 

will  not  only  leave  the  river  free  for  the  present  method  of  nayigation  upon  floods, 
but  it  will  increase  the  length  of  time  during  which  the  flood  will  be  available.  This 
I will  explain  as  well  as  I can  in  the  absence  of  drawings. 

On  the  French  rivers  when  the  water  is  high 

THE  NAVIGABLE  PASS 

is  open  and  all  the  wickets  on  the  low  part  of  the  permanent  dam  are  down.  When 
the  water  falls  to  the  minimum  depth  required  for  the  navigation  there  is  still  several 
feet  running  over  the  low  permanent  dam  or  weir,  and  the  lockmen  then  begin  to  raise 
the  wickets  on  the  weir  at  the  shore  end.  Each  day  they  raise  whatever  number  may 
be  necessary  to  turn  the  additional  amount  of  water  into  the  navigable  pass  which 
may  be  needed  to  keep  up  the  required  depth.  When  all  the  water  of  the  river  is  thus 
made  to  go  through  the  pass,  and  it  still  continues  to  fall,  they  begin  to  close  the  main 
wickets  day  by  day  as  fast  as  is  necessary  to  keep  up  the  depth  in  the  navigable  pass 
by  contracting  the  iviclth.  Thus  they  keep  open  the  gap,  gradually  narrowing  its  limits, 
as  long  as  it  can  be  run  with  safety  to  the  works;  then  close  it,  and  use  the  locks  dur- 
ing the  continuance  of  low  water.  Let  us  see  how  this  would  affect  the  Ohio.  I have 
before  me,  in  the  engineer’s  report  for  1871,  a table  showing  the 

DAILY  STAGE  OF  THE  WATER 

by  the  Pittsburgh  gauge  for  the  year  1868,  about  an  average  year.  From  this  it  ap- 
pears that  there  was — 

8 feet  and  over,  65  days  in  the  year. 

6 feet  and  over,  153  days  in  the  year. 

Between  5 and  6 feet,  44  days  in  the  year. 

Between  4 and  5 feet,  31  days  in  the  year. 

Under  8 feet,  300  days. 

Under  6 feet,  212  days. 

Under  5 feet,  168  days. 

It  must  be  evident  to  even  a casual  observer  of  the  Ohio  that,  if  the  quantity  of 
water  which  flows  in  the  open  river  to  make  a 6-ioot  stage  could  be  concentrated  into 
a pass  only  400  feet  wide,  it  would  increase  the  depth  in  the  pass  to  an  amount  pro- 
portionate to  its  volume  and  velocity.  So  also  the  water  which  makes  a 5-foot  stage 
in  the  open  river. 

Applying  this  plain  fact,  we  find  that  if  by  raising  the  wickets  on  the  permanent 
part  of  the  dam  during  a 6-foot  stage  and  turning  all  the  water  into  the  navigable 
pass,  and  the  depth  of  the  pass  would  be  increased  only  2 feet,  there  would  be  8 feet 
in  the  channel  for  153  days  instead  of  6b  days,  as  non\  If  concentrating  the  water  when 
there  is  5 to  6 feet  would  raise  it  in  the  pass  from  1 inch  to  1 foot,  we  would  have  an 
open  6-foot  navigation  197  days  instead  of  153  as  now. 

By  raising  half  the  wickets  in  the  navigable  pass  and  reducing  the  width  200  feet  asthe 
water  begins  to  sink  to  the  4-foot  stage,  the  6-foot  open  navigation  could  probably  be 
continued  31  days  longer,  increasing  the  197  days  to  228  days,  and  leaving  but  137  days 
during  which  the  locks  would  be  necessary  for  navigation.  Thus  we  would  get  an 

48  E 


754 


REPORT  OF  THE  CHIEF  OF  ENGINEERS. 


improvement  from  the  navigable  passes  and  dams'alone,  even  without  the  locks,  rep- 
resented by  the  following  figures  : 

Tlnimproved  river.  Xavigrable  pass. 

Days.  Days. 

Depth,  8 feet  and  over (35  153 

Depth,  6 feet  and  over 153  197 

By  narrowing  the  pass 228 

To  make  these  figures  mathematically  correct  would  require  intricate  calculations 
and  measurements  involving  velocity,  currents,  &c.,  but  they  are  accurate  enough  for 
illustration,  and  approach  very  near  to  what  will  be  realized  from  the  proposed  method 
of  improvement. 

They  show  that  the  Ohio  can  have  a practically  unobstructed  channel  for  navigation 
6 feet  deep  and  over  for  228  days  in  the  year,  and  slack-water  with  convenient  and 
capacious  locks  the  remainder  of  the  time,  during  the  greater  part  of  which  it  is  now 
uunavigable. 

F.  R.  B. 

Pittsburgh,  February  19,  1876. 


REPORT  ON  THE  SURVEY  OP  THE  SUMMIT-LEVEL,  BY  MR.  E.  LORRAINE,  PRINCIPAL 
ASSISTANT  ENGINEER  OF  THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  CANAL. 

Richmond,  January  20,  1852. 

Sir  : I have  the  honor  to  submit  to  you  the  following  report  of  the  survey  of  the 
summit-level  of  the  James  River  and  Kanawha  Canal,  made  under  your  instructions 
dated  April  7,  1851,  and  in  accordance  with  subsequent  instructions  received  from  time 
to  time  in  the  field  and  by  correspondence. 

The  object  of  the  survey  was  to  ascertain  the  practicability  and  cost  of  supplying 
with  water  the  summit  level  of  the  canal.  A survey  for  this  purpose  was  made  in  the 
year  1827  by  Capt.  William  G.  McNeill,  of  the  United  States  Topographical  Engineers, 
by  whom  it  was  pronounced  practicable  to  feed  from  the  Greenbrier.  As  his  plan, 
however,  involved  the  adoption  of  a tunnel  five  miles  long  through  the  Greenbrier 
Mountain,  it  was  deemed  expedient  to  make  a further  examination  of  the  Greenbrier 
and  its  tributaries  to  ascertain  whether  it  was  practicable  to  feed  from  the  Greenbrier 
and  at  the  same  time  dispense  with  the  long  tunnel. 

The  survey  was  commenced  at  the  eastern  base  of  the  Alleghany  Mountain,  where  it 
was  connected  with  station  1093,  the  terminating  point  of  a survey  of  the  line  of  canal 
from  Covington  westward,  made  under  your  direction  by  John  E.  Mills,  esq.,  in  the  fall 
of  1850.  Having  established  the  summit-level,  as  directed  by  you,  at  an  eievation  of 
(396  feet  above  the  level  of  Jackson’s  River  at  Covington,  and  1,916  feet  above  tide,  a 
location  was  made  for  the  tunnel  through  the  Alleghany  to  the  point  wUere  the  plane 
of  the  summit-level  intersects  the  western  base  of  the  mountain,  in  the  valley  of  Tuck- 
ahoe  Creek.  From  this  point  I traced  a line  for  a feeder  along  the  eastern  side  of  the 
South  and  Middle  Forks  of  Howard’s  Creek,  crossing  over  the  Middle  Fork  to  the  North 
Fork;  then  crossing  the  North  Fork  and  running  down  its  western  margin  along  the 
base  of  Greenbrier  Mountain,  and  around  the  south  point  of  that  mountain  to  the  eastern 
side  of  the  Greenbrier  River,  and  thence  up  the  Greenbrier.  This  line  was  traced  with 
great  care  for  about  nineteen  miles  up  Greenbrier  River,  when  the  impracticability  of 
feeding  from  Greenbrier  by  drawing  the  water  from  any  pond  that  might  be  formed 
upon  this  level  became  so  evident,  for  reasons  that  will  be  hereafter  stated,  that,  after 
advisement  with  you,  the  location  of  the  feeder-line  was  abandoned.  The  levels  and 
compass-line,  however,  were  continued  up  that  river  to  the  Droop  Mountain  or  the 
mouth  of  Spice  Run,  a distance  of  fifty-six  miles  from  the  summit-level,  and  about 
forty  miles  up  the  Greenbrier  froni  the  mouth  of  Howard’s  Creek. 

The  Greenbrier  River  is  bordereift  by  mountains  which  generally  slope  down  to  the 
water’s  edge,  with  occasionally  a narrow  strip  of  low  grounds  intervening  between 
the  base  of  the  mountain  and  the  river.  The  sides  of  the  mountain  have  a general 
inclination  of  from  25°  to  35°,  and  not  unfrequently  of  45°.  From  Greenbrier  Bridge 
for  19  miles  up  the  river  they  are  covered  with  loose  rock,  in  many  places  perfectly 
bare  of  soil,  and  from  6 to  10  feet  deep,  measuring  vertically.  A feeder-canal  con- 
structed in  such  a locality  would  require  very  high  walls  on  one  side,  for  which  it 
would  be  difficult  to  procure  a substantial  foundation,  and  on  the  other  side,  in  order 
to  obtain  a sufficient  slope,  a great  extent  of  the  surface  of  the  hill  would  have  to  be 
removed.  The  whole  of  the  bottom  and  the  sides  up  to  the  water-line  would  have  to 
be  lined  with  puddle,  which  could  only  be  procured  from  a great  distance,  and  gen- 
erally from  the  opposite  side  of  the  river,  and  hauled  up  a steep  hill,  upon  an  average 
of  150  feet  above  the  river:  and  then  after  the  feeder  was  constructed,  in  the  most 
substantial  manner,  it  would  be  liable  to  be  swept  away  by  slides  of  eaith,  stones,  and 


APPENDIX  V. 


755 


trees,  brought  down  from  above  by  every  heavy  rain  that  occurred.  The  entire  length 
of  the  feeder  would  be  about  53  miles,  which  might  be  shortened  to  31  miles  by  the 
adoption  of  Captain  McNeill’s  5-mile  tunnel,  or  to  43  miles  by  the  adoption  of  a tunnel 
miles  long  through  the  Greenbrier  Mountain,  opposite  the  White  Sulphur  Springs. 
With  either  of  these  tuuuels  the  general  character  of  the  feeder  would  be,  as  above  de- 
scribed, difficult  to  be  made  substantial,  and  extremely  costly.  Those  are  the  consid- 
erations which  Jed  to  au  abandonment  of  the  plan  of  supplying  the  summit-level  by 
means  of  a feeder  from  the  Greenbrier. 

Having  concluded  the  survey  of  the  Greenbrier,  my  attention  was  directed,  by  par- 
ticular instructions  from  you,  to  the  other  streams  which  are  so  abundant  in  that 
mountain  region,  with  a view  of  testing  their  availableuess  as  feeders.  The  mosc  prom- 
inent of  these  are  Anthony’s  Creek,  Little  Creek,  the  Middle  and  N<'rth  Forks  of  How- 
ard’s Creek,  and  the  South  Fork  of  Howard’s  Creek,  or  Tuckahoe  Creek.  The  first  in 
rank  of  these  streams  is  Anthony’s  Creek,  which  is  a tributary  of  the  Greenbrier.  It  is 
25  miles  long  from  its  mouth  to  its  source,  and  is  fed  by  Little  Creek,  and  three  prin- 
cipal branches  which  unite  about  15  miles  from  its  mouth,  and  also  innumerable 
smaller  streams  and  springs  which  issue  from  the  sides  of  the  mountains  by  which  it 
is  bound. 

About  8 miles  above  its  mouth  there  is  a place  called  the  “ Narrows,”  where  the 
creek  has  forced  its  way  through  a steep  and  narrow  gorge  of  the  mountain,  and  above 
which  the  mountains  diverge,  and  the  sr.ream  runs  through  a beautiful  valley  about  a 
half-mile  wide.  This  place  was  selected  as  a site  for  a mound,  which,  when  thrown 
across  this  narrow  point,  will  effectually  arrest  the  water  that  flows  down  the  creek, 
and  convert  the  valley  above  into  a magnificent  reservoir  9 miles  long  and  40  miles 
around,  with  an  average  width  of  one-half  of  a mile,  a superficial  area  of  2,753  acres, 
and  a mean  depth  of  60  feet.  The  mound  for  this  reservoir  will  be  126  feet  high  and 
395  feet  long.  In  order  to  avail  ourselves  of  this  immense  body  of  water,  it  will  be 
necessary  that  the  mountain-ridge  which  separates  the  southern  border  of  the  reservoir 
from  the  valley  of  Howard’s  Creek  shall  be  pierced  by  a tunnel  2}  miles  long.  The 
level  of  the  bottom  of  this  tunnel  wdl  be  30  feet  below  the  surface  of  the  water  in  the 
reservoir.  It  passes  for  its  entire  length  through  a black-slate  rock  of  easy  excavation, 
and  as  it  will  only  be  necessary  to  be  made  just  large  enough  to  be  advantageously 
worked,  it  cannot ^e  considered  an  obstacle  of  any  serious  importance.  After  passing 
through  this  tunnel,  the  water  from  the  reservoir  will  flow  down  the  bed  of  Dry  Creek, 
and  at  the  narrow  gorge  where  it  enters  into  the  valley  of  the  North  Fork  of  How- 
ard’s Creek,  a dam  300  feet  long  and  20  feet  high  will  have  to  be  constructed  to  stop 
the  w^ater  and  turn  it  by  a tunnel  200  yards  long  into  the  valley  of  the  Middle  Fork  of 
Howard’s  Creek,  after  which  it  will  be  conducted  by  a feeder  canal  2.8  of  a mile  long, 
of  a cheap  and  easy  construction,  to  the  summit-level. 

In  the  valley  of  Little  Creek,  there  will  also  be  a reservoir,  the  water  from  which 
will  be  conducted  by  a feedt-r  of  4.3  miles  long  into  the  Anthony  Creek  reservoir.  The 
mound  of  this  reservoir  will  be  690  fet-.t  long  and  40  feet  high.  The  area  of  the  reser- 
voir will  be  127  acres,  and  the  depth  of  available  water  20  feet. 

Upon  the  north  or  main  fork  of  How^ard’s  Creek  there  will  be  two  reservoirs ; the 
lower  one  of  which  is  called  the  Howard’s  Creek  reservoir,  will  be  made  by  a mound, 
1,180  feet  long  and  50  feet  high.  Its  area  will  be  156  acres,  and  depth  of  available 
water  25  feet.  The  upper  one  is  called  the  Jericho  reservoir,  the  mound  for  which 
will  be  222  feet  long  and  63  feet  high,  its  aiea  92  acres,  and  mean  depth  21  feet ; all 
the  water  of  which  can  be  drawn  off  into  the  lower  ri  servoir  whenever  it  may  be  re- 
quired. The  water  from  these  two  reservoirs  will  be  conducted  by  a feeder-canal, 
1,800  feet  long,  into  the  pond  formed  by  the  dam  acioss  Dry  Creek,  where  it  will  con- 
nect With  the  water  from  Anthony’s  Creek. 

The  filth  and  last  reservoir  is  that  upon  Tuckahoe  Creek.  This  reservoir  is  formed 
by  a mound  589  feet  long  and  85  feet  high;  its  area  is  159  acres,  and  m»  an  depth  of 
available  water  30  feet.  The  localities  of  these  reservoirs  and  feeders  will  be  more 
fully  understood  by  reference  to  the  accompanying  map. 

Under  the  mounds  of  all  the  reservoirs  adequate  provision  has  been  made,  conform- 
able with  your  direction,  for  culverts  which  will  allovv  the  waters  of  the  creeks  to  pass 
off  during  the  construction  of  the  mounds,  and  obviate  all  annojances  and  danger  to 
the  work  in  time  of  freshets.  After  the  reservoirs  are  filled,  these  culverts,  with  the 
ayipendages  of  pipes  and  gates,  will  be  used  for  drawing  off  the  water  as  required,  for 
the  purpose  of  feeding  the  canal,  or  for  drawing  it  all  off,  if  necessary,  for  repairs. 

Having  given  the  above  brief  description  of  the  general  jilan  of  the  reservoirs,  the 
next  thing  lo  be  considered  is  the 

SUPPLY  OF  WATER. 

In  conformity  with  the  principles  laid  down  by  you,  I shall  first  enter  into  a calcula- 
tion of  the  supply  of  water  which  will  be  required  for  the  use  of  the  canal,  and  then 
into  a calculation  of  the  supply  that  will  be  afforded  by  the  reservoirs. 

The  whole  length  of  the  canal  to  be  supplied  entirely  by  the  reservoirs  would  be  that 


756 


REPORT  OF  THE  CHIEF  OF  ENGINEERS. 


portion  between  the  point  on  the  eastern  side  of  the  snminit  where  Dunlap’s  Creek  is 
taken  in  as  a feeder,  and  the  point  on  the  western  side  of  the  snrninit  where  Howard’s 
Creek  is  taken  in  as  a feeder,  a distance  of  about  9 miles.  But  as  the  supply  from 
Howard’s  Creek  will  be  considerably  diminished  by  the  quantity  of  water  which  will 
be  shut  off  by  the  reservoir  above,  we  wdll  not  consider  Ploward’s  Creek  as  affording 
any  supply  at  all,  except  what  is  obtained  from  its  reservoirs.  It  should,  how^ever,  be 
borne  in  mind  that  this  will  be  a most  liberal  deduction  from  our  actual  supply,  espe- 
cially during  the  winter  months,  when  this  creek  is  full,  and  would  be  a most  important 
auxiliary.  The  length  of  canal  then  which  we  wdll  assume  as  supplied  by  the  reser- 
voirs is  all  that  portion  included  between  the  point  where  Dunlap’s  Creek  is  taken  in 
and  the  Greenbrier  River,  a distance  of  miles.  After  the  prism  of  the  canal 

shall  have  been  filled,  the  yearly  supply  which  will  be  demanded  from  the  reservoirs 
will  be  a quantity  sufficient  to  supply  the  loss  by  leakage  through  the  locks  and 
evaporation  and  filtration  from  the  canal,  and  the  quantity  consumed  in  the  passage 
of  the  boats  through  the  locks  of  the  summit-level. 

From  experiments  made  by  Mr.  Fisk  on  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal,  the  loss  by 
leakage  through  the  locks,  which  are  of  the  same  size  as  ours,  amounted  to  62  cubic 
feet  per  minute,  and  the  monthly  loss  upon  the  same  canal  from  eva{)oratiou  and  filtra- 
tion was  about  IPuice  the  quantity  of  water  contained  in  it.  The  w'hole  quantity,  then, 
lost  upon  our  canal  would  be,  according  to  Mr.  Fisk’s  experiments,  59  cubic  feet  per 
minute  for  each  mile.  According  to  Mr.  Jervis’s  experiments  on  the  Erie  Canal,  the 
total  loss  from  evaporation,  filtration,  and  leakage  through  thegate.s  is  about  100  cubic 
feet  per  minute  for  each  mile.  Let  us,  then,  assume  the  highest  of  these  quantities  as 
our  standard.  The  portion  of  the  canal  occupied  by  the  tunnel  and  its  approaches 
being  through  solid  rock,  would  be  subjected  to  no  leakage,  and  not  as  much  loss  by 
evaporation  as  would  be  supplied  by  subterranean  springs,  and  is,  therefore,  excluded 
from  this  calculation,  leaving  the  entire  length  of  the  canal  subject  to  filtration  and 
evaporation  lli%  miles.  The  loss,  then,  by  leakage,  filtration,  and  evaporation  would 
be  1,180  cubic  feet  per  minute,  or  1,699,200  cubic  feet  per  diem. 

In  making  the  estimate  for  the  quantity  of  water  consumed  in  passing  the  boats 
through  the  locks,  let  us  assume  that,  the  canal  shall  enjoy  a full  trade,  and  the  boats 
pass  through  the  locks  at  the  summit  as  fast  as  possible.  The  average  time  of  a boat 
passing  a lock  of  10  feet  lift  is  about  6 minutes,  or  about  240  boats  per  diem.  Assum- 
ing a full  trade,  we  must  also  assume  a fair  alternation  of  boats  i)assing  the  summit- 
level,  which  wmuld  allow  1^  x^nsms  of  lift  to  each  boat,  or  360  locks  full  of  water  per 
diem,  which,  for  locks  of  10-feet  lift,  would  amount  to  5,400,000  cubic  feet  per  diem. 
Add  to  this  quantity  1,699,200  cubic  feet,  the  quantity  lost  by  leakage,  filtration,  and 
evaporation,  and  we  have  7,099,200  cubic  feet,  or  262,933  cubic  yards,  per  diem  as  the 
quantity  of  water  necessary  to  navigate  the  canal  with  a full  trade. 

To  arrive  at  the  amount  of  water  that  will  be  available  to  supply  the  above  demand, 
we  must  estimate  the  quantity  that  will  be  supplied  by  the  rain  falling  upon  the  area 
of  country  drained  by  the  several  streams  upon  which  the  reservoirs  are  to  be  con- 
structed. For  this  purpose  rain-gauges  have  been  kei^t  at  points  bordering  upon  the 
said  streams,  and  the  results  of  observations  of  four  consecutive  years  have  been 
recorded.  An  accurate  survey  of  the  area  of  the  country  drained  was  made  under  my 
direction  during  the  last  summer,  in  which  the  whole  outline  of  the  basin  of  each 
stream  extending  along  the  top  ridges  of  the  Alleghany  and  its  sxmrs  was  carefully 
traced.  From  the  above  data  the  average  quantity  of  rain  which  falls  per  annum  can 
be  easily  obtained  ; and  after  making  the  prox)er  deduction  for  evax)oration  and  absorx)- 
tion,  we  arrive  at  the  quantity  of  available  water  which  the  streams  afford.  • But  as  this 
supxfiy  is  not  constant,  but  variable,  it  is  necessary  that  it  should  be  regulated.  For 
this  x:>urpo>e  mounds  must  be  constructed  at  convenient  points  across  these  streams, 
which  will  dam  them  up  and  form  large  reservoirs,  from  which  the  supply  requisite  for 
the  navigation  of  the  canal  can  be  drawn  off’  at  x)leasure.  To  ascertain  the  quantity 
of  water  which  these  reservoirs  will  contain,  an  accurate  survey  was  made  of  their 
superficial  extent,  after  which  cross-sections  of  their  depth  were  taken  at  every  con- 
siderable variation  in  the  ground  with  the  angles  of  the  hill-side  at  every  station  of 
100  feet.  Each  reservoir  was  then  divided  into  a number  of  fields,  the  superficial  and 
cubic  contents  of  which  were  sex^arately  calculated. 

The  area  of  the  country  drained  into  these  resx^ective  streams  is  as  follows: 


Acres. 

Into  Anthony’s  Creek 65, 160 

Into  Little  Creek 5,  634 

Into  Howard’s  Creek 20, 196 

Into  Tuckahoe  Creek 9,522 

Total 100, 512 


or  157  square  miles. 

The  result  of  the  rain-gauges  at  Anthony’s  Creek  is  an  average  of  37  inches  x^er  an- 
num, and  at  the  White  Sulphur  Springs  38  inches  per  annum,  giving  a general  average 


APPENDIX  V. 


757 


of  37-1^  iiiclies,  which,  filling  upon  the  above  area,  will  give  506,8  H, 833  cubic  yards  per 
annum,  or  1,388,627  cubic  yards  per  diem.  The  auuual  drainage  from  a given  area 
depends  upon  the  climate  and  the  topographical  and  geological  featu  -es  of  the  country. 
From  extensive  experiments  made  by  Mr.  Charles  Ellet,  jr.,  upon  the  Ohio  River,  which 
are  recorded  in  his  ‘‘  Physical  Geography  of  the  Mississippi  Valley,”  he  has  ascertained 
that  the  annual  drainage  in  that  section  of  country  is  40  percent,  of  the  rain  thatfalls. 
In  other  localities  it  is  found  to  be  50,  and  as  much  as  60  per  cent.  The  country  sur- 
rounding the  summit-level  of  the  James  River  and  Kanawha  Canal  is  all  mountainous. 
The  sides  of  the  mountains  are  generally  steep  and  but  scantily  covered  with  soil, 
offering  every  facility  for  a rapid  discharge  of  the  water  which  falls  upon  its  surface. 
When  we  take  into  consideration  the  difference  between  this  country  and  that  which 
is  drained  by  the  Ohio  River,  the  latter  consisting  principally  of  gentle  slop  -s,  we  are 
warranted  in  the  conclusion  that  its  annual  drainage  must  be  by  far  the  greater  of  the 
two,  and  even  greater  than  any  of  the  above  estimates. 

From  observations  made  by  Mr.  J.  B.  Jervis,  in  reference  to  the  reservoirs  for  the 
Chenn.ngo  Canal  in  the  State  of  New  York,  it  appears  that,  in  that  locality,  al)out 
two  fifths  (or  40  per  cent.)  of  toe  quantity  of  rain  may  be  collected  for  the  supply  of 
a reservoir.  We  will  put  it,  therefore,  at  the  low  estimate  of  40  per  cent.,  which  will 
leave  555,450  cubic  yards  per  diem  as  its  drainage,  and  the  quantity  that  may  be  col- 
lected in  reservoirs,  or  more  than  twice  as  much  as  would  be  required  for  the  naviga- 
tion of  the  canal.  By  a proper  distribution  of  r-servoirs  nearly  the  whole  of  this 
quantity  of  water  might  te  collecred  and  retained  for  future  use.  But,  as  all  of  it 
would  not  be  required,  it  is  only  proposed  to  construct  a few  reservoirs  in  the  most 
advantageous  localities,  where  narrow  passages  through  the  mountains  suddenly  ex- 
pand into  spacious  valleys,  and  where  short  ajid  high  mounds  thrown  up  at  no  great 
expense,  across  the  narrow  gorges,  will  shut  up  large  bodies  of  water,  which  can  be 
drawn  off  and  used  at  pleasure. 

The  following  table  will  show  the  area  and  cubic  contents  of  these  reservoirs,  and 
the  annual  drainage  into  each  of  them  : 


Reservoirs. 

Area  of  reservoir 
ill  acres. 

Cubic  yards  avail- 
able water  in  reser- 
voirs. 

Area  of  drainage  in 
acres. 

^ 'S 

oH.S 

•2  ^ 

o 

Forty  per  cent,  of 
rain  allowed  for 
drainage. 

Antliony’s  Creek 

2,  753 
127 
248 
159 

109, 189,  130 

3,  013,  856 
.9,  276,  410 
’7,  693,  464 

65, 160 

5,  654 

6,  75') 

9,  522 

324,  099,  758 
28,  122,  468 
33,  573,  870 
47,  361,539 

129,  039,  903 
11,  248,  987 
13,  429,  548 
18,944,016 

Little  Creek  

Howard’s  and  Jericlio 

Tuckahoe 

Total 

3,  287 

129, 172,  800 

87,  086 

433, 157,  635 

173,  263,  054 

From  an  inspecfion  of  the  above  table,  it  will  be  seon  that  the  quantity  of  water 
assumed  to  be  available,  and  proposed  to  be  reserved  for  the  use  of  the  canal,  is 
173,263,054  cubic  yards  per  annum.  From  this  quantity  should  be  deducted  the  annual 
loss  from  evaporation  and  leakage  of  the  reservoirs  and  feeders.  We  will  put  down 
the  annual  evaporation  from  the  reservoirs  at  Smeatou’s  estimate  of  36  inches;  but  60 
per  cent,  of  the  annual  fall  of  rain,  or  22  inches,  having  been  already  allowed  to  pass 
off  by  evajioration  and  absorption,  in  which  the  rain  falling  upon  the  surface  of  the 
res'-rvoirs  is  included,  only  the  difference  between  that  <]uautiLy  and  36  inches,  or  14 
inches,  should  be  allowed  for  evaporation.  The  allowance  for  leakage  and  absoiqition 
in  the  reservoirs  should  be  limited  to  the  quantity  of  leakage  through  the  mounds. 
There  can  be  no  leakage  or  absorption  or  filtration  in  the  reservoirs  themselves,  for 
after  the  water  has  passed  through  and  saturated  the  rhiu  overlying  stratum  of  soil, 
it  would  reach  the  impe'ictrable  rock,  and  then  it  would  have  to  stop  ; there  could  be 
no  further  absorption  or  filtration. 

We  will  then  only  consider  the  leakage  through  the  mounds,  and  for  this  purpose  we 
will  suppose  each  mound  to  be  the  bank  of  a canal  of  30  feet  bottom,  and  that  the  contents 
of  such  a canal  would  pass  through  its  banks  once  in  fifteen  days,  eras  there  would  be 
but  one  bank,  once  in  a month  such  an  allowance  for  all  the  reservoirs  would  bo  equal 
to  40  inches  of  their  surface  annually,  which,  adiRd  to  14  inches,  gives  54  inches  as  the 
whole  deduction  for  evaporation  and  filtration  in  the  reservoirs,  eipial  to  23,863,620 
cubic  yards  per  annum.  For  evaporation  and  filtration  in  the  feeders,  allow  that  each 
feeder  will  lose  the  whole  of  its  prism  of  water  once  in  every  fifteen  days.  This  for 


758 


REPORT  OF  THE  CHIEF  OF  ENGINEERS. 


miles  of  feeder,  with  an  area  of  cross-section  of  58.50  square  feet,  will  amount  to 
2,051,200  cubic  yards  per  annum.  We  have  then  for  deduction  : 


Cubic  yards. 

For  evaporation  and  filtration  in  the  reservoirs 23,863,020 

For  evaporation  and  filtration  in  feeders 2,  051, 200 


Total 25,914,820 

Which  deducted  from  total  supply 173, 263,  054 


Leaves  for  available  water,  per  annum 147,  348,  234 

Or,  per  diem 40.3,  694 

The  quantity  estimated  as  required  being,  x)er  diem 202,  933 


We  have  a surplus  of  water,  per  diem,  over  demand,  equal  to 140, 761 


In  making  the  above  calculations,  we  have  exact  data  for  the  area  of  drainage  and 
the  downfall  of  rain.  The  allowances  made  for  the  drainage  and  for  losses  by  evapo- 
ration and  filtration  in  the  canal,  reservoirs,  and  feeders,  are  based  upon  careful  obser- 
vations and  experiments  made  by  distinguished  engineers  in  this  country  and  in 
England.  In  adopting  this  basis,  however,  it  will  be  observed  that  we  have  not 
availed  ourselves  of  the  highest  or  lowest  estimates  which  would  best  suit  our  pur- 
pose, or  even  of  an  average,  but  have  been  contented  to  assume  the  lowest  for  the 
amount  of  drainage,  and  the  highest  for  the  evaporation,  filtration,  and  leakage.  Still 
we  have  the  large  surplus  of  140,761  cubic  yards  per  diem,  or  more  than  one-half  of 
the  required  supply.  This  surplus  is  amply  sufficient  to  cover  any  contingencies  or 
objections  that  ingenuity  may  suggest.  * To  cover  the  ground,  however,  more  fully,  it 
is  a fact  worthy  of  attention  that  we  have  not  in  the  above  estimate  a.vailed  ourselves 
of  the  whole  area  of  drainage,  but  that  there  still  remains  13,446  acres  of  drainage  on 
the  middle  fork  of  Howard’s  Creek,  which  might  be  added  to  the  above  estimate,  and 
that  by  multiplying  the  reservoirs  in  the  valleys  of  the  streams  embraced  in  the  sur- 
vey, a sufficient  supply  of  water  could  be  obtained  for  nearly  two  such  canals. 

If,  at  some  future  time,  the  increase  of  trade  on  the  canal  should  demand  a double 
set  of  locks,  and  consequently  nearly  a double  supply  of  water,  the  additional  quantity 
that  might  be  demanded  could  be  obtained  in  the  mode  above  indicated.  Dunlap’s 
and  Potts’s  Creeks  on  the  eastern  side  of  the  mountain  could  also  be  taken  in,  if 
necessary. 

Below  is  an  estimate  of  the  cost  of  supplying  the  summit-level : 


Anthony’s  Creek  mound $166,181  32 

Anthony’s  Creek  feeder-tunnel 318,509  20 

Little  Creek  mound 17,  056  25 

Little  Creek  feeder 43,996  10 

Jericho  mound 15,030  00 

How^ard’s  Creek  mound - 47,554  50 

Howard’s  Creek  feeder 5,799  20 

Dry  Creek  mound 2,435  00 

Feeder  from  Dry  Creek  to  Summit,  including  tunnel 52,  382  00 

Tuckahoe  mound 83,348  50 

Land-damages 51,000  00 


803,292  07 

Add  for  contingencies  20  per  cent 160,  658  41 


Total  cost 963,950  48 


The  above  estimate  includes  all  the  reservoirs  and  feeders  that  may  be  necessary  for 
the  navigation  of  the  canal  with  a full  trade,  and  is  intended  to  cover  all  contingencies. 
But  as  the  canal  at  first  would  not  have  a full  trade,  and  would  probably  not  be  open 
on  an  average  for  more  than  eleven  months  in  the  year,  thereby  diminishing  the  re- 
quired su])ply  of  water  one-twelfth,  it  is  evident  that  there  would  be  no  necessity  for 
constructing  all  these  reservoirs  at  first.  Anthony’s  Creek  reservoir  would  of  itself  be 
amply  sufficient  to  supply  the  canal  during  the  whole  year — for  many  years  to  come. 
A strict  estimate  of  the  cost  of  supplying  the  summit-level  should  then  be  confined  to 
The  cost  of  that  reservoir  and  its  feeders,  which  will  amount  (with  20  per  cent,  added 
for  contingencies)  to  $696,963. 

Daily  gauges  of  Anthony’s  Creek  were  commenced  last  August,  and  will  be  continued 
until  twelve  mouths  shall  have  expired.  These  gauges,  together  with  the  rain-gauges, 
will  furnish  us  with  exact  data,  by  which  we  can  ascertain  the  annual  discharge  of 
water  by  the  creek,  the  difference  between  which  and  the  downfall  of  rain  will  show'' 
the  quantity  carried  off  by  evaporation  and  absorption. 

Toward  the  close  of  the  survey  I was  joined  by  Professor  Tuomey,  of  the  University 
of  Alabama,  who  was  invited  by  the  President  to  make  a geological  examination  of 


APPENDIX  V. 


759 


the  sites  of  the  reservoirs.  That  gentleman  made  a laborious  and  careful  examination 
of  the  whole  ground,  the  results  of  which  have  been  published,  and  are  highly  satis- 
factory. 

Very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant^ 

E.  Lorraine, 

Principal  Assistant  Engineer. 

Col.  Walter  Gwynn, 

Chief  Engineer  James  Bi  ver  and  Kanawha  Canal. 


Approved  and  submitted  in  lieu  of  any  report  of  my  own,  as  is  usual  upon  surveys 
made  under  my  direction. 


Walter  Gwynn, 

Chief  Engineer  James  Biver  and  Kanawha  Canal. 


Table  of  rain-gauges. 


At  Anthonj^’s  Creek. 


At  White  Sulphur  Springs. 


1847- 

’48. 

1848-’49. 

1849- 

’50. 

1850- 

'51. 

1847- 

’48. 

1848- 

’49. 

1849-’50. 

1850- 

’51. 

Meters. 

Parts. 

1 Meters. 

Parts. 

Meters. 

Parts. 

Meters. 

Parts. 

Meters. 

Parts. 

'o 

Parts. 

Meters. 

Parts. 

Meters. 

Parts. 

September  .... 

22 

6 

24 

5 

11 

3 

6 

2 

21 

5 

20 

4 

16 

0 

6 

2 

October  

3.3 

0 

11 

3 

34 

3 

21 

5 

30 

7 

20 

7 

30 

3 

21 

5 

November 

44 

4 

35 

4 

11 

0 

31 

6 

42 

7 

35 

3 

10 

0 

31 

6 

December 

32 

1 

42 

1 

56 

6 

46 

3 

37 

8 

43 

5 

56 

0 

44 

2 

.J.anuary  

23 

0 

25 

5 

38 

7 

5 

0 

22 

7 

26 

5 

36 

3 

3 

5 

February  

33 

3 

23 

7 

31 

9 

32 

2 

32 

2 

22 

5 

26 

8 

32 

9 

March 

44 

6 

42 

9 

23 

0 

24 

4 

48 

2 

40 

8 

23 

3 

24 

4 

April 

17 

7 

19 

3 

35 

8 

28 

4 

21 

6 

20 

8 

45 

6 

28 

2 

May 

51 

9 

32 

3 

53 

1 

40 

5 

39 

9 

33 

1 

53 

1 

27 

2 

June 

11 

9 

20 

5 

40 

1 

17 

7 

16 

0 

39 

0 

25 

6 

25 

5 

July 

41 

7 

58 

6 

12 

0 

49 

6 

57 

2 

45 

8 

30 

6 

86 

0 

August 

38 

7 

35 

0 

42 

0 

18 

8 

'36 

2 

13 

2 

46 

1 

18 

8 

Total 

394 

9 

371 

1 

388 

8 

322 

2 

406 

7 

361 

6 

399 

7 

350 

0 

Inch 

39.  49 

37.  11 

33.  88 

32.  22 

40.  67 

36. 16 

39.  97 

35.  00 

SUPPLEAIENTAL  report  on  the  survey  of  the  summit-level,  by  MR.  E.  LORRAINE, 
ASSISTANT  ENGINEER  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  CANAL. 

Pattonsburgh,  October  5,  1852. 

Sir  : I had  the  honor  of  submitting  to  you  in  January  last  a report  upon  the  survey 
of  the  summit-level,  and  upon  the  supply  of  water  which  might  be  obtained  for  the  nav- 
igation of  the  canal.  The  calculations  for  the  water-supply  were  based  upon  accurate 
surveys  of  the  basins  of  the  various  creeks  from  which  it  was  supposed  to  feed,  and 
upon  the  observations  of  the  downfall  of  rain  for  the  four  preceding  years. 

To  the  engineer  or  to  the  man  of  science  this  method  is  iierfectly  satisfactory,  be- 
cause he  knows  it  is  customary,  and  that  where  it  has  been  tested  the  practical  results 
have  always  proved  that  the  theory  was  correct.  But  to  the  person  unaccustomed  to 
scientific  investigations  the  whole  process  appears  to  be  chimerical,  at  least,  if  not  em- 
inently ridiculous.  Such  persons  regard  the  scheme  of  carrying  the  canal  over  the 
Alleghany  Mountains  more  as  one  of  the  reveries  of  a lunatic  than  as  the  sober  thought 
of  a sound  practical  mind.  And  the  notion  of  its  impracticability  is  based  mostly  upon 
the  idea  that  it  will  be  impossible  to  obtain  water  sufficient  to  supply  the  summit-level. 
The  enemies  of  the  canal  have  taken  advantage  of  the  ignorance  of  the  i)eo)de,  and  en- 
deavored to  plunge  them  into  still  greater  darkness,  eith^er  by  the  misrepre^ntation  of 
facts  or  by  the  suppression  of  the  truth.  The  country  about  the  summit-level  has  been 
represented  as  a region  of  parched  and  arid  rocks,  upon  which  the  rain  never  falls,  or 
if  it  does,  only  to  be  swallowed  up  by  innumerable  chasms.  The  creeks  and  streams 
are  said  to  be  all  (fc-y,  and  the  only  hope  of  supplying  the  canal  is  from  a few  holes  to 
be  dug  in  the  mountains,  which  are  to  be  filled  from  the  mists  and  dews  of  heaven. 

The  object  of  the  survey  which  you  caused  to  be  made  last  year  was  to  remove  all 
doubt  as  to  the  practicability  of  prosecuting  the  water-line  to  the  Ohio.  A report  was 
made  upon  that  survey,  which  I believe  satisfied  yourself  and  every  candid  friend  of 
truth  that  the  water  line  was  practicable,  and  that  the  summit-level  could  be  amply 
supplied  at  a very  moderate  cost.  The  estimates,  however,  of  the  supply  of  water 
were  based  upon  the  downfall  of  rain.  But  as  it  has  seemed  heretofore  a great  mys- 


760 


EEPOET  OF  THE  CHIEF  OF  ENGINEEES. 


tery  to  the  people  of  Virginia  how  it  was  possible" for  a canal  to  be  supplied  by  rain, 
forgetting  that  the  Mississippi  River  receives  its  annual  supply  from  the  same  con- 
temptible source,  it  was  desirable  that  the  subject  should  be  investigated  in  another 
way,  which  should  be  more  practicable  and  tangible  to  the  eyes  of  even  those  who  do 
not  wish  to  see  ; and  as  there  seems  to  be  such  an  objection  to  the  canal  being  sup- 
plied in  the  same  way  as  our  rivers,  lakes,  and  seas,  it  was  hoped  that  if  it  could  be 
clearly  proved  that  Anthony’s  Creek  itself,  apart  from  all  connection  with  the  clouds 
and  rain,  actually  discharged  enough  water  to  supply  the  canal,  that  then  the  mystery 
would  be  solved  and  the  most  incredulous  would  become  convinced.  For  this  purpose 
you  instituted  daily  gauges  of  Anthony’s  Creek,  to  be  continued  for  one  year.  Accu- 
rate sections  of  the  creek  were  taken  in  three  different  places,  and  it  was  so  arranged 
that  it  was  only  necessary  that  the  width  and  velocity  of  the  creek  should  be  measured 
daily  and  reported  by  a careful  and  intelligent  person.  Such  a person  we  found  in 
Col.  Andrew  Humphreys,  who  deserves  great  praise  for  the  punctuality  and  faithful- 
ness with  which  he  has  discharged  the  important  duties  which  were  assigned  to  him. 
The  gauges  have  been  regularly^  taken,  the  reports  have  been  sent  in,  and  are  now 
before  me  with  the  calculations  deduced  from  them,  which  I now  beg  leave  to  submit 
to  you. 

Table  of  the  qmntitij  of  neater  discharged  by  Jntliony’s  Creelc  in  one  year. 


January. .. 
P'ebruary.. 

March 

April 

May 

June 

July 

August 

September. 
October  . . 
November. 
December. 


Months. 


Cubic  yards 
of  water  dis- 
charged per 


It,  649,  673 
40,  628,  408 
38,  455,  285 
45,  333,  023 
13,  262,  9.39 
19,  208,  005 
4,  586,  482 
7,  071,220 
1,  194,  709 
780,491 
6,  963,  657 
21,393,  063 


Total, 


210,  526,  955 


The  above  is  the  quantity  of  water  which  actually  flowed  down  Anthony’s  Creek  in 
one  year. 

In  making  my  calculations  of  the  supply  of  water  from  the  downfall  of  rain,  I as- 
sume an  estimate  of  40  per  cent,  as  the  quantity  of  rain  that  would  be  drained  off  into 
the  creeks  and  that  could  be  collected  in  reservoirs.  I assume  this  quantity  because 
it  is  the  same  as  was  reported  by  Mr.  Ellet  as  the  drainage  of  the  valley  of  the  Ohio, 
and  by  Mr.  Jervis  as  the  drainage  into  the  reservoir  of  the  Chenango  Canal.  I,  how- 
ever, stated  that  the  drainage  in  other  localities  has  been  found  to  be  as  much  as  60 
per  cent,  of  the  rain  that  fell,  and  ventured  the  assertion,  from  ray  knowledge  of  the 
lieculiar  formation  of  the  basin  of  Anthony’s  Creek,  that  its  drainage  would  amount  to 
even  more  than  60  per  cent.  In  that  conclusion  I am  now  sustained  by  the  facts  which 
have  since  been  elicited  by  the  gauges  of  the  creek.  The  rain-gauges  for  the  same  year 
give  34.23  inches  as  the  downfall  of  the  rain,  equal  to  about  .300,000,000  cubic  yards  of 
rain,  of  which  about  210, .500, 000  cubic  yards,  or  70  per  cent.,  was  drained  off  and  dis- 
charged by  the  creek.  I observe,  however,  upon  a comparison  of  the  rain-register  and 
the  gauges  of  the  creek,  that  the  latter  was  sometimes  very  much  swollen  from  rains  not 
indicated  by  the  rain-register,  and  which  must,  therefore,  have  fallen  near  the  head- 
waters of  the  creek.  That  being  the  case,  it  is  safest  to  assume  the  downfall  of  rain 
at  what  it  has  averaged  for  the  last  five  years,  viz,  36.366  inches.  It  is  also  proper  to 
deduct  froi^i  the  annual  discharge  of  the  creek  a constant  quantity  equal  to  365  times 
its  least  daily  discharge,  which  is  about  2,000,000  cubic  yards  per  annum,  which  may 
be  considered  as  supplied  by  springs.  This  quantity  being  deducted,  leave  s the  drain- 
age into  the  creek  equal  to  208,526,955  cubic  yards.  The  downfall  of  36.386  inches  gives 
318,738,394  cubic  yards  of  rain.  The  drainage  is  therefore  65^  per  cent,  of  the  downfall 
of  rain.  This  is  a mere  matter  of  philosophical  inquiry,  in  no  way  connected  with  the 
supply  of  the  summit-level,  as  it  is  intended  in  the  present  investigation  to  ignore  rain 
altogether  until  it  becomes  creek-water.  It  is  onl}"  alluded  to  as  establishing  an  in- 
teresting meteorological  fact,  based  on  carefully-conducted  experiments  on  a very 
large  scale. 

To  those  persons  who  have  heretofore  been  impressed  with  the  idea  that  the  streams 
about  the  summit  level  are  nearly  dry  or  lose  themselves  in  immense  chasms,  it  may 


APPENDIX  V. 


761 


appear  strange  that  so  great  a quantity  of  water  should  pass  down  Anthony’s  Creek. 
To  those  who  live  upon  the  creek  it  will  he  nothing  new.  They  have  seen  it  as  I have, 
when  swollen  by  rains,  rushing  through  the  “Narrows”  with  an  impetuosity  and  volume 
almost  incredible.  I have  myself  seen  it  discharge  in  one  day  a sufficient  quantity  of 
water  to  till  the  entire  canal  from  Buchanan  to  Richmond,  or  200  miles  of  canal  40  feet 
wide  and  5 feet  deep.  I have  also  seen  it  wide  enough,  deep  enough,  and  swift  enough 
to  carry  seven  of  our  largest  freight-boats  abreast  at  the  rate  of  5^  miles  an  hour. 

The  quantity  of  rain  which  fell  last  year  was  only  34^  inches,  which  is  considerably 
below  the  average.  Neither  was  there  any  remarkable  freshet  in  the  creek  beyond 
that  in  common  to  it  every  year.  We  may  therefore  assume  the  above  quantity  of 
210^  millions  cubic  yards  are  the  average  yearly  supply.  The  question  then  is,  is  it 
enough  for  the  wants  of  the  canal  ? 

I have  estimated  the  quantity  of  water  necessary  for  the  supply  of  the  summit-level 
at  9.5,970,545  cubic  yards  per  annum  ; this  was  supposing  a boat  passed  the  summit- 
level  every  six  minutes  in  every  day  for  365  days,  which  is  a very  extravagant  calcu- 
lation ; for  if  you  allowed  every  boat  to  carry  50  tons  it  would  make  an  annual  tonnage 
of  4,380,000  tons. 

Cubic  yards. 

The  quantity  allowed  for  filtration  and  evaporation  in  the  five  reservoirs 


and  feeders  was 25,914,820 

Which  added  to 95,  970,  545 


Gives 121,  885,  .365 

as  the  total  quantity  to  he  supplied. 

Anthony’s  Creek  yields  us 210,  526,  955 


We  therefore  have  a surplus  of 88,  641,  .590 

for  contingencies. 

In  the  above  calculation  I have  allowed  for  filtration  and  evaporation  in  five  reser- 
voirs, which  is  also  ah  extravagant  amount,  as  we  are  supposing  but  one  to  be  in  use. 

It  is  an  undeniable  fact,  then,  that  Anthony’s  Creek  alone  affords  a sufficient  quan- 
tity of  water  to  supply  the  summit-level.  If  that  were  the  only  stream  upon  which  we 
had  to  depend  there  wmuld  be  no  obstacle  to  the  passage  of  the  canal  over  the  mount- 
ains. But  there  are  three  other  creeks,  viz.  Little  Creek,  Tuckahoe  and  Howard’s 
Creeks,  whose  united  volume  amounts  to  about  one-third  of  Anthony’s  Creek,  which, 
if  necessary,  could  be  appropriated  for  the  use  of  the  canal. 

Anthony’s  Creek  being  proved  sufficient,  the  only  question,  then,  is,  can  it  be  made 
available  at  a reasonable  cost? 

If  a Virginia  farmer  has  a small  stream  running  through  his  plantation,  and  he  wishes 
to  erect  a mill  upon  it,  all  that  he  does  is  to  build  a dam  across  the  valley  of  the  stream 
and  put  his  mill  up  near  it,  nothing  doubting  that  the  dam  will  stop  up  the  water  and 
form  a pond,  from  which  the  desired  water-power  can  be  obtained.  He  does  not  em- 
ploy a geologist  to  tell  him  whether  his  pond  will  hold  water  or  not.  He  goes  ahead, 
with  perfect  confidence  that  the  water  can  be  dammed  up  and  made  available.  TUe 
James  River  and  Kanawha  Company  can  go  ahead  with  the  same  confidence  and  dam 
up  Anthony’s  Creek.  The  operation  is  exactly  the  same,  only  upon  a large  scale,  and 
with  the  additional  security  that  the  basin  of  the  creek  has  been  examined  by  an  emi- 
nent geologist,  who  pronounces  the  rocks  to  be  in  the  best  possible  position  to  retain 
the  water.  After  the  mound  is  niade,  the  craek  itself  will  fill  the  reservoir,  and  keep 
it  full,  besides  supplying  all  the  demands  of  the  canal. 

It  will  require  a tunnel  2^  miles  long  to  conduct  the  water  from  the  reservoir  to  the 
canal.  This  tunnel  is  through  slate  rock,  and  need  only  be  6 feet  in  diameter.  The 
tunneling-machine  lately  put  into  operation  at  the  Hoosac  tunnel  would  walk  through 
it  in  a very  short  time,  or,  even  if  it  had  to  be  excavated  in  the  usual  way,  it  could  be 
done  at  a cost  of  about  $300,000.  The  whole  cost  of  supplying  the  summit-level  wil 
not  exceed  $700,000. 

All  the  fancied  difficulties  and  impossibilities  of  supplying  the  summit-level,  and 
consequently  of  carrying  the  canal  across  the  mountains,  vanish  into  thin  air  before 
this  array  of  facts.  It  becomes,  then,  a mere  question  of  policy  or  expense.  In  that 
light  the  subject  ceases  to  come  within  the  legitimate  scope  of  this  report.  As  you 
thought  proper  to  assign  me  the  duty  of  making  the  survey,  I considered  it  within  my 
province  not  only  to  submit  the  above  facts,  but  the  deductions  to  be  drawn  from 
them,  and  to  dispel,  as  far  as  possible,  the  thick  medium  of  prejudice  and  ignorance 
through  which  the  subject  has  been  heretofore  viewed,  not  only  by  the  enemies  of.  the 
canal,  but,  I believe,  by  some  of  its  best  friends. 

Very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 


E Lorraine, 


Assistant  Engineer  J.  li.  <^-  K.  Canal. 


Col.  Walter  Gwynn, 

Chief  Engineer  J.  B.  cf  K.  Canal. 


762 


REPORT  OF  THE  CHIEF  OF  ENGINEERS. 


LETTER  FROM  THE  SECRETARY  OF  WAR,  TRANSMITTING  A REPORT 
ON  THE  JAMES  RIVER  AND  KANAWHA  CANAL-ROUTE. 

Doc.  No.  216.  Ho.  of  Reps.;  War  Department;  20th  Cong.,  1st  Sess. 

March  24,  1828. — Read  and  laid  upon  the  table. 

Washington : Printed  by  Gales  Seaton,  1828. 

War  Department,  March  24,  1828. 

Sir:  In  compliance  with  a resolution  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  of  the  2d  of 
January  last,  I have  the  honor  to  transmit  herewith  a letter  from  the  Chief  Engineer, 
of  this  date,  accompanied  by  a report  on  the  James  and  Kanawha  canal-route.  To 
save  time,  it  has  been  thought  necessary  to  transmit  the  original  report,  which  report, 
it  is  requested,  may  be  returned  to  this  Department,  when  it  shall  have  answered  the 
purposes  of  the  House. 

I have  the  honor  to  be,  very  respectfully,  sir,  your  most  obedient  servant, 

James  Barbour. 

The  Hon.  Andrew  Stevenson, 

Si)ealcer  of  the  Rouse  of  Representatives. 


Engineer  Department, 
Washington  City,  March  24,  18,8. 

Sir  : I have  the  honor  to  lay  before  you  a letter  from  Capt.  W.  G.  McNeill,  of  the 
topographical  engineers,  accompanied  by  his  report  on  the  route  for  a canal  between 
the  James  and  Kanawha  Rivers,  which  report  was  called  for  by  a resolution  of  the 
House  of  Representatives  of  the  21  Januaiy  last. 

I have  the  honor  to  be,  very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

Alex.  Macomb. 
Major-General,  Chief  Engineer. 

Hon.  James  Barbour. 

Secretary  of  War. 


Georgetoavn,  D.  C.,  March  24,  1828. 

Sir:  I have  the  honor  to  transmit  herewith  a report  on  the  James  and  Kanawha 
Canal,  in  illusTration  of  which  a map  is  now  in  the  course  of  preparation. 

All  the  maps  and  profiles  relating  to  the  experimental  surveys  are  already  completed, 
as  well  as  those  exhibiting  the  locations  from  the  James  to  the  Greenbrier  River;  the 
others,  including  the  locations  down  the  Greenbrier  and  New  Rivers,  are  in  progress  of 
completion.  There  are  in  all  nearly  thirty  large  maps,  including  the  plans  and  profiles, 
on  a scale  suitable  to  the  exhibition  of  details;  but  they  are  too  unwieldy  to  accom- 
pany the  report,  and  are  retained  till  they  can  be  reduced  into  one  general  map.  Most 
of  the  drawings  in  relation  to  the  Roanoke  and  Kanawha  Canal  are  nea  ly  finished, 
but  their  size  renders  it  necessary  that  they,  also,  be  reduced  into  a more  convenient 
shape. 

I have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  with  great  respect,  your  obedient  servant, 

Wm.  G.  McNeill, 

Captain  United  States  Topographical  Engineers. 

Maj.  Gen.  Macomb, 

Chief  Engineer,  Washington  City. 


To  Major-General  Macomb, 

Chief  Engineer: 

Sir:  In  pursuance  of  instructions  from  the  board  of  internal  improvements,  of  July 
29,  1826,  predicated  on  the  orders  of  the  Chief  Engineer,  assigning  to  my  brigade  the 
execution  of  certain  surveys,  “ to  ascertain  the  practicabdity  and  means  of  connecting 
the  waters  of  the  Great  Kanawha  with  those  of  the  James  or  Roanoke  River,  by  canals 
or  railroads,  or  both,  and  also  the  connection  of  the  Roanoke  and  James,’'  I have  now 
the  honor  to 

REPORT 

that  the  short  interval  which  elapsed  between  the  receipt  of  my  instructions  and  ter- 
mination of  the  first  season  was  consumed  in  preliminary  operations,  which  merely 
related  to  the  first  object  to  which  my  instructions  referred,  to  wit,  the  practicability 
of  a “ connection  of  the  Kanawha  and  James  Rivers,  by  means  of  a canal;”  that  in 


APPENDIX  V. 


763 


May,  1827,  the  surveys  were  resumed  and  continued  till  November  ; and  that  in  that 
period  the  required  location  of  a line  of  canal  from  Covington,  on  James  River,  to  the 
foot  of  the  Great  Falls  of  Kanawha  was  effected,  with  that  of  all  the  works  relating 
to  a summit-level,  such  as  feeders,  reservoirs,  &c.,  and  the  consequent  location  made, 
as  enjoined,  in  the  event  of  its  practicability,  of  a canal  from  the  forks  of  the  Roanoke 
to  the  Great  Falls  of  Kanawha  River. 

The  subject  under  consideration  naturally  advances  as  our  first  inquiry,  “theprac- 
UcahiUty  of  a connection  of  the  Kanawha  and  James  Rivers,  by  means  of  a canal, 
and,  in  contemplating  such  a connection,  we  are  led,  in  the  first  place,  to  remark  that 
the  characters  of  the  small  tributaries  which  empty  into  the  James  or  Greenbrier 
Rivers,  (the  country  intermediate  to  those  rivers  being  that  under  consideration,)  like 
those  of  most  mountain-sti’eams,  incontrovertibly  prove  their  inadequacy  to  the  per- 
manent supply  of  a canal,  and  that,  in  consequence,  the  practicability  of  the  project 
must  depend  on  the  adequacy  of  the  Greenbrier  River  for  that  purpose,  at  some  point 
whence  ils  waters  may  be  conducted  to  a summit-level  of  such  elevation  that  the 
dividing-ridge  may  be  passed  without  encountering  an  excessive  length  of  tunnel. 

To  the  solution  of  this  question,  then,  various  experimental  lines  were  directed 
through  the  ravines,  which,  on  the  one  side,  bound  the  tributaries  of  Dunlap’s  Creek, 
and,  on  the  other,  through  those  which,  heading  opposite  to- them,  define  the  course  of 
eit  her  Second  Creek, Howard’s  Creek,  or  Anthony’s  Creek,  in  their  progress  to  the  Green- 
brier River,  by  which  was  ascertained  the  height  of  the  dividing  ridge  in  its  greatest 
depressions,  and  a profile  was  carried  up  Greenbrier  River  to  obtain  such  knowledge 
of  its  character  as  was  indispensable  to  the  judicious  selection  of  a summit-level. 

A comparison  of  the  elevation  of  the  dividing  ridge,  on  any  route  examined,  with 
that  of  the  Greenbrier  River,  at  any  point  within  a reasonable  distance,  at  once  dis- 
closes the  necessity  of  a tunnel ; and  that  this,  with  every  other  fact  connected  with 
the  subject,  may  be  known,  I proceed  to  detail  the  results  developed  in  the  course  of 
our  investigations. 

As  the  basis  of  comparison  in  the  description  about  to  be  given,  all  the  heights  and 
distances  will  be  refer) ed  to  the  bench-mark,  at  the  mouth  of  Dunla|)’s  Creek,  oppo- 
site to  the  town  of  Covington  and  to  begin  with  that  route  which,  from  the  near 
approach  of  the  opposite  streams,  the  gradual  slope  on  either  side  of  the  dividing 
ridge,  and  the  seemingly  great  depression  of  the  Alleghany  Mountains,  might  induce 
a belief  of  its  paramount  advantages,  we  shall  describe — 

FIRST — A ROUTE  BY  THE  VALLEYS  OF  DUNLAP’s  AND  SECOND  CREEKS. 

Dunlap’s  Creek,  or  its  main  branch,  (known  as  its  south  fork,  on  which  are  the 
famed  Sweet  Springs,)  heads  nearly  on  the  summit  of  the  ridge  which  divides  it  from 
Second  Creek,  and  pursues  its  course  at  the  base  of  Peter’s  Mountaiu,  nearly  parallel 
with  the  Alleghany  Mountain,  till  within  6 miles  of  its  mouth,  when,  having  received 
the  waters  of  Ogley’s  Creek,  it  continues  in  a direction  in  general  nearly  at  right 
angles  to  its  former  course.  Between  its  source  and  its  conffuence  with  Ogley’s  Creek 
several  small  runs  contribute  to  its  supply,  such  as  Cove  Creek,  Fork  Run,  and  Brush 
Creek  ; but  they  are  noticed  rather  on  account  of  their  directions,  which  shall  hereafter 
be  alluded  to,  than  because  of  any  efficient  aid  to  be  derived  from  them  toward  the 
feeding  of  a canal. 

Dunlap’s  Creek  is,  in  general,  bordered  by  flats  varying  in  width  from  2r)0  yards  to 
half  a mile,  although  it  may  sometimes  occur  that  the  hills  impinge  so  far  upon  the 
stream  as  to  render  it  preferable  to  gain  an  opposite  flat  by  an  aqueduct  (since  bottom- 
land is  always  to  be  found  on  one  side  or  the  other,  and  the  width  of  the  stream  never 
exceeds  35  yards)  than  to  encounter  the  obstacles  presented  by  steep  side-lying  ground 
in  an  attem})t  to  avoid  that  expense.  This  remark,  however,  is  applicable  in  a degree 
as  well  to  all  the  other  valleys  through  which  experimental  lines  were  run  as  to  that 
of  Dunlap’s  Creek. 

For  the  first  22  miles  the  average  rise  in  the  stream  may  be  assumed  at  25  feet  per 
mile,  whe!)  for  the  next  mile  the  regularity  of  its  ascent  is  interrupted  by  falls  and 
rapids  comprising  135  feet ; thence  to  the  summit  succeeds,  first,  an  ascent  for  8 miles 
of  73  feet  per  mile,  and,  in  the  remaining  half  a mile,  a rise  of  105  feet;  making  the 
distance  of  the  summit  from  the  base-mark  31^  miles,  and  its  elevation  1,372  feet  7 
inches. 

A depression  in  the  Alleghany  Mountain  west  of  that  just  alluded  to  induced  an- 
other experimental  line  from  Dunlap’s  to  Second  Creek  ; but  of  this  suffice  it  to  say  it 
was  found  still  higher,  being  1,408  feet  above  the  base-mark. 

* The  bench-mark  at  the  mouth  of  Dunlap’s  Creek  is  12  feet  below  a bench-mark 
established  on  the  opposite  side  of  the  river,  in  1819,  by  Messrs.  Moore  and  Briggs,  who 
reported  the  mouth  of  Dunlap’s  Creek  to  be  1,238  feet  above  tide-water.  Our  base- 
mark,  therefore,  which  is  about  2 feet  above  the  water,  may  be  assumed  to  be  1,240 
feet  above  tide- water. 


764 


REPORT  OF  THE  CHtEF  OF  ENGINEERS. 


On  tlescendiag  Second  Creek  tlie  slope  from  the  summit  to  the  Greenbrier  River  av- 
erages 337  feet  per  mile,  with  the  exception  of  the  first  two  and  a half  miles,  in  which 
the  fall  is  140  feet,  or,  in  otlier  words,  the  distance  from  the  summit  of  the  mount- 
ains to  the  mouth  of  Second  Creek  is  27  miles  and  the  fall  067  feet,  making  the 
total  distance  from  the  mouth  of  Second  Creek  to  that  of  Dunlap’s  Creek,  by  their  re- 
spective valleys,  fifty-eight  and  a half  miles,  and  the  Greenbrier  River,*  at  the  mouth 
of  Second  Creek,  406  feet  above  the  base-mark. 

Our  present  i)urpo8e,  however,  being  merely,  in  the  first  place  to  show  the  relative 
altitudes  of  those  depressions  which  suggested  the  different  experimental  lines  across 
the  mountain,  and  to  compare  them  with  the  elevation  of  the  Greenbrier  River,  that 
we  may  assume  a summit-level  which  may  command  the  waters  of  the  Greenbrier 
without  involving  an  impracticable  length  of  tunnel,  we  shall  confine  ourselves  to  the 
few  facts  already  stated,  till,  in  succession,  each  route  shall  have  as  briefly  been  con- 
sidered. 

For  obvious  reasons,  which  will  appear  hereafter,  (see  page  767,)  no  other  experi- 
mental lines  were  run  from  Dunlap’s  to  Second  Creek,  nor  was  it  deemed  material, 
after  a careful  reconnaissance,  that  any  tributary  above  Fork  Run  should  be  surveyed. 

We  shall  then  next  describe  that  as  the 

SECOND  ROUTE — BY  DUNLAP’s  CREEK,  FORK  RUN,  AND  HOWARD’S  CREEK. 

Howard’s  Creek,  the  first  tributary  of  any  note  to  the  Greenbrier  River  above  Sec- 
ond Creek,  at  the  distance  of  seven  miles  from  its  mouth,  is  formed  by  the  union  of  its 
three  branches,  which,  from  their  relative  directions,  we  shall  designate  as  the  South, 
the  Middle,  and  the  North  Forks. 

The  South  Fork  rises  near  the  heads  of  the  upper  branches  of  Dunlap’s  and  Second 
Creeks,  and  pursues  a course  nearly  parallel  with  Dunlap’s  Creek  till  it  receives  the 
wafers  of  Tuckahoe  Run,  a small  stream  which  empties  into  it  near  Comb’s  saw-mill. 

The  first  depression  remarkable  in  the  dividing-ridge  between  Dunlap’s  Creek  and  the 
South  Fork  of  Howard’s  Creek  is  found  where  the  Alleghany  is  indented  on  the  west 
by  Tuckahoe,  as  it  is  on  the  east  by  Fork  Run,  an  opposite  •tributary  to  Dunlap’s  Creek  ; 
and  it  is  through  this  depression  that  the  second  route  is  directed.  That  part  of  the 
route  between  the  mouth  of  Dunlap’s  Creek  and  Fork  Run  has  already  been  described 
as  ascending  at  the  average  rate  of  25  feet  per  mile  ; thence  to  the  summit  of  the  mount- 
ain through  the  narrow  valley  of  Fork  Run  (sufficiently  wide,  however,  for  a canal, 
the  flats  usually  being  from  100  to  200  feet  wide)  we  ascend  at  a much  more  rapid 
rate,  and,  in  the  short  distance  of  five  miles  and  thirty-eight  yards,  rise  689  feet,  mak- 
ing the  height  of  the  Alleghany,  at  the  head  of  Fork  Run,  1,092  feet,  and  its  distance 
from  the  base-mark  twenty-two  and  three-quarters  miles. 

The  descent  on  the  west,  by  the  ravine  of  Tuckahoe  Run,  is  very  precipitous  for  1 
mile  593  yards,  the  fall,  in  that  distance,  being  331  feet ; when,  having  arrived  at  the 
South  Fork  of  Howard’s  Creek,  the  fall  becomes  quite  gradual;  the  distance  from  the 
mouth  of  Tuckahoe  to  that  of  Howard’s  Creek  being  lOf  miles,  and  the  fall  315  feet. 

The  valley  of  Howard’s  Creek  is,  in  general,  wide,  and  under  cultivation,  and,  with 
the  exception  of  the  short  distance  of  one-eighth  of  a mile  above  Hunter’s  Mill,  where 
the  mountains  on  either  side  terminate  in  the  stream,  the  construction  of  a canal  would 
encounter  no  particular  difficulty  from  the  nature  of  the  ground. 

Fork  Run,  at  the  distance  of  4 miles  750  yards  from  its  mouth,  branches  in  two  direc- 
tions, that  which  we  have  heretofore  alluded  to  being  the  soutliern  of  the  two;  but  as 
the  Alleghany,  where  it  divides  the  northern  branch  from  the  Middle  Fork  of  Howard’s 
Creek,  presents  another  depression,  through  it  was  directed  the 

THIRD  ROUTE — BY  DUNLAP’S  CREEK,  FORK  RUN,  TO  THE  MIDDLE  FORK  OF  HOWARD’S 

CREEK,  AND  THENCE  BY  THE  VALLEY  OF  H;>WARD’S  CHEEK  TO  THE  GREENBRIER 

RIVER. 


Of  this  route,  although  among  the  most  promising,  since,  wirh  the  exception  of  a few 
miles,  it  occupies  the  same  ground  as  the  second  route,  but  litcle  need  be  said.  The 
height  of  the  dividing-ridge  is  greater  than  by  the  second,  being  1,221  feet,  and  the 
access  to  the  summit,  on  either  side,  more  gradual.  It  does  not,  therefore,  present  as 
short  a tunnel.  Indeed,  the  only  advantage  which  it  possesses  arises  from  its  being 
nearer  the  Greenbrier  River;  and  it  will  be  shown  hereafter  how  far  that  can  place  it 
in  competition. 

Brush  Creek,  the  next  tributary  to  Dunlap’s  Creek,  has  been  enumerated  among  those 
whose  direction  claims  some  notice.  But  since  the  turnpike  road,  which  pursues  the 
valley  of  the  South  Fork  of  Ogley’s  Creek  to  its  source  in  the  ridge,  crosses  that  ridge 
and  enters  the  valley  of  Brush  Creek  several  miles  from  the  summit  of  the  Alleghany, 

* Viz,  the  bench-mark  at  the  mouth  of  Second  Creek. 


APPENDIX  V. 


765 


instead  of  running  a profile  from  the  month  of  Brush  Creek,  it  was  thought  sufficient 
to  continue  the  prodle  from  Ogley's  Creek  in  the  direction  of  the  turnpike,  and  from 
the  ])oint  at  which  it  strikes  Brush  Creek  to  cross  the  Alleghany  in  the  three  deyires- 
sions  in  which  the  several  branches  of  Brush  Creek  head  oyiposite  the  Middle  and  the 
North  Fork  of  Howard’s  Creek ; for  it  was  apyiarent,  if  a tunnel  should  be  requisite 
hy  either  of  the  routes  from  Bri;sh  Creek,  that  its  length,  unless  immoderate,  Avould  be 
included  betAA^een  the  intersection  of  the  turnpike  with  that  stream  and  its  correspond- 
ing elevation  west  of  the  mountain. 

The  first  line  from  Brush  Creek  was  ditected  through  the  gap  occupied  by  the  pres- 
ent turnpike  road  to  the  Middle  Fork  of  Howard’s  Creek.  It  determined  the  height 
of  that  gap  to  be  1,288  feet.  By  the  second  line,  the  height  of  the  depression  through 
which  the  former  road  was  located  AvaS  found  to  be  1,252  feet ; and,  by  the  third  line 
from  Brush  Creek,  the  elevation  of  the  Alleghany,  in  a deyiression  betAveen  it  ami  the 
North  Fork  of  HoAvard’s  Creek,  AA’as  found  to  be  1,534  feet.  It  will  be  seen,  on  the 
a‘-sumpti()n  of  a summit-level,  that  by  no  route  from  Brush  Creek  could  the  passage  of 
the  Alleghany  be  effected  by  as  shoi  t a tunnel  as  Avill  be  found  on  other  routes. 

Ogley’s  Creek,  the  last  tributary  to  Dunlap’s  Creek  of  any  importance,  alone  remains 
to  be  spoken  of.  We  have  already  incidentally  mentioned,  in  describing  the  routes  by 
Brush  Creek,  that  its  southern  fork  heads  in  a ridge  between  it  and  Brush  Creek ; but 
although  the  height  of  that  ridge  (it  being  1,143  feet  above  the  base-mark  and  200  feet 
above  its  western  base)  Avould,  of  course,  necessitate  a longer  tunnel  from  the  South 
Fork  of  Ogley’s  Creek  than  from  Brush  Creek,  and  would,  in  consequence,  opyiose  itself 
successfully  to  the  location  of  a canal,  yet,  since  the  shortest  route  from  the  James  to 
the  Greenbrier  River  would  be  in  the  direction  of  the  present  turnpike  road,  in  refer- 
ence to  the  selection  of  the  best  route  for  a railroad,  (an  ulterior  object  contemplated 
by  my  instructions,)  the  valley  of  the  South  Fork  of  Ogley’s  Creek  merits  more  consid- 
eration than  if  a canal  alone  were  the  subject  of  our  investigations. 

The  valley  of  Ogley’s  Creek  is  not,  either  in  quality  of  its  soil  or  the  nature  of  the 
rocks  in  its  vicinity,  particularly  distinguished  by  any  peculiar  characteristics;  tor 
3 miles  from  its  mouth  it  affords  a considerable  quantity  of  rich  productive  laud  on  the 
northern  side,  to  AA^hich  the  flats  a.(e  almost  exclusively  conflned ; and  beyond  that,  as 
Ave  approach  the  mountain  by  its  South  Fork,  we  find  the  valley  contracted  to  a width 
of  but  from  50  to  100  yards. 

The  Middle  Fork  of  Ogley’s  Creek,  however,  is  the  main  branch,  and  it  presents  a 
wnder  A'alley  throughout  its  course  than  that  of  the  South  Fork,  with  which  it  unites  9 
miles  from  the  base-mark,  and  230  feet  above  it.  Its  direction  corresponds  nearly  with 
that  of  the  North  Fork  of  Howard’s  Creek,  and  is  such  as  to  bring  it  nearer  to  Anthony’s 
Creek  than  any  other  of  the  eastern  tributaries  ; which  fact  rendered  its  examination 
the  more  important  because  of  the  advantages  which  would  result  from  the  proximity 
of  a summit-level  on  Anthony’s  Creek  to  the  source  whence  the  supply  of  Avater  is  to 
be  derived. 

A profile  AA^as,  therefore,  continued  throughout  the  whole  length  of  the  Middle  Fork 
of  Ogley’s  Creek,  and  thence  down  Anthony’s  Creek,  Avith  the  intent  to  learn,  as  well 
if  any  depression  existed  between  Ogley’s  and  the  North  Fork  of  HoAvard’s  Creek,  as 
the  difficulties  opposed  to  the  route  of  a canal  in  the  valley  of  Anthony’s  Creek.  Of 
the  one  or  two  experiments  made  from  the  Middle  Fork  of  Ogley’s  Creek  to  the  North 
Fork  of  HoAvard’s  Creek,  it  is  sufficient  to  state  that  although  carried  no  great  distance 
from  the  former,  they  conclusively  proved  that  the  height  and  Avidth  of  the  mountain 
betAveen  those  streams  rendered  their  connection  impracticable. 

The  eleA^ation  of  the  Alleghany,  where  it  divides  the  Middle  Fork  of  Ogley’s  from 
the  nearest  head  branch  of  Anthony’s  Creek,  is  1,772  feet,  and  the  distance  to  that  point 
from  the  base-mark  20  miles  and  1,100  yards;  the  descent  thence  to  the  base-mark  at 
the  mouth  of  Anthony’s  Creek  (5  feet  above  the  stream)  was  found  to  be  1,212  feet,  and 
the  distance  18-^  miles  ; hence  the  Gret ubiier  River  at  the  mouth  of  Anthony’s  Creek 
is  555  feet  above  the  base  mark. 

The  profile  from  Ogley’s  Creek  to  the  mouth  of  Anthony’s  Creek  descended  for  1^ 
miles  a mere  ravine,  Avhich  bounds  the  small  tributary  known  as  Laurel  Run  ; but 
thence  to  AA  ithin  6 miles  of  the  mouth  of  Anthony’s  Creek,  during  Avhich,  from  the 
accession  from  tributaries,  its  supply  has  become  considerable,  Ave  in  general  find  the 
stream  bordered  by  fertile  bottoms,  under  cultivation,  from  one-quai  ter  to  a half  mile 
in  width.  Nor  is  it  until  it  breaks  through  the  Greenbrier  Mountain  (when  the  flats 
disappear)  that  either  its  descent  is  so  rapid  or  its  valley  so  contracted  as  to  qualify 
it  advantagiiously  for  the  purposes  of  a reservoir. 

It  is  only  necessary  noAv  to  add  that  a profile  Avas  carried  up  the  North  Fork  of  Ogley’s 
Creek,  till  having  risen  841  feet  above  the  base-mark,  we  Avere  satisfied  of  the  iuutility 
of  proceeding  farther,  (since  its  source  was  knoAvn  to  be  as  elevated  and  more  distant 
from  Anthony’s  Creek  than  that  of  Middle  Fork,)  and  it  will  be  apparent,  from  an  in- 
spection of  the  map  that  no  depression  can  exist  in  the  ridge  dividing  the  Avaters  of 
Dunlap’s  Creek  from  those  Avhich  flow  into  the  Greenbrier  River,  Avhich  has  not  been 
sufficiently  examined  to  enable  us  to  determine  the  best  route  for  the  passage  of  the 
Alleghany — abstracting  such  considerations  as  relate  to  the  supply  of  water. 


766  REPORT  OF  THE  CHIEF  OF  ENGINEERS. 


These  considerations  now  sn<;gest  as  the  subject  of  our  next  inquiry  the  character 
of  the  Greenbrier  River,  whose  relative  position  to  the  different  routes,  or  comparative 
supply  at  different  elevations,  is  to  be  so  influential  in  determining  the  proper  eleva- 
tion  to  the  summit  level. 

The  survey  and  level  of  Greenbrier  River  were  commenced  at  a base-mark  at  the 
mouth  of  Howard’s  Creek,  (5,9.35  feet  above  the  then  surface  of  the  water,)  and  con- 
tinued for  39  miles  up  the  river,  in  which  distance  the  ascent  was  found  to  be  318  feet, 
or  the  point  at  which  we  stopped  is  770  feet  above  the  base- mark.  Anthony’s  Creek  and 
Spring  Creek  are  the  only  tributaries  of  mucli  consequence  intermediate  to  Howard’s 
Creek  and  the  “ Droop  Mountain,”  near  which  latter  point  the  survey  of  Greenbrier 
River  was  discontinued,  and,  therefore,  it  was  with  less  surprise  we  observed  that  the 
supply  of  water  did  not  diminish  very  materially  in  our  progress  up  the  river,  or  that, 
on  the  contrary,  it  seemed  to  vary  but  little  when,  in  passing  over  ledges,  its  whole 
volume  could  be  estimated.  For,  as  an  exception  to  the  apparent  uniformity  of  its 
supply,  it  is  to  be  remarked  that,  at  times,  the  stream  almost  disappears  amojig  the 
loose  stones  and  fissures  of  its  bed,  and  that,  in  one  case  where  a vein  of  limestone 
traverses  its  valley,  all  the  water  is  passed  through  a subterraneous  chanuel  for  the 
distance  of  a mile  nearly.  This,  however,  occurs  but  once,  (in  the  twenty-third  mile 
from  Howard’s  Creek,)  and  then  only  in  very  low  stages  of  the  water. 

Greenbrier  River  pursues  a very  sinuous  course  through  a valley  unusually  con- 
tracted, when  viewed  with  reference  to  the  size  of  the  stream,  and,  with  some  partial 
exceptions  only,  we  find  it,  throughout  the  extent  at  present  under  consideration,  bor- 
dered by  high  and  rugged  hills  which  descend  steeply  to  the  water’s  edge.  There  are, 
it  is  true,  narrow  strips  of  alluvial  on  one  or  the  other  side,  but  they  are  never  contin- 
uous for  any  considerable  distance,  nor  of  such  value  as  t > merit  consideration  when 
their  submersion  shall  be  the  consequence  of  such  dams  as  might  be  desired  for  the 
formation  of  reservoirs. 

The  country  west  of  Greenbrier  River,  although  hilly,  affords  rich  and  arable  lands  ; 
east  of  the  river  it  is  mountainous,  and  in  general  but  illy-adapted  to  agricultural 
purposes.  But,  for  a more  minute  descriirtion  of  the  quality  of  the  soil,  vegetable 
and  mineral  productions,  &c.,  and  of  the  character  of  the  country  above  Droop 
Mountain,  resort  may  be  had  to  the  report  of  Lieutenant  Dillahunty,  which  is  appended 
to  this  report. 

A reference  to  the  profile  of  the  river  will  show  that  the  general  and  average  rise 
of  7,6  feet  per  mile  for  31  miles  above  Howard’s  Creek  is  but  seldom  interrupted  ; 
and  that  beyond  that,  or  as  we  approach  Droop  Mountain,  the  average  rise  of  the 
Greenbrier  is  about  10  feet  per  mile.  The  heights  to  which  freshets  rise  above  the 
ordinary  bed  of  tie  stream  vary,  of  course,  with  the  slope  and  ivklth  of  the  valley. 
Traces  of  such  as  are  known  to  be  of  frequent  occurrence,  at  almost  all  seasons  of  the 
year,  were  perceived  6 and  8 feet  above  low-water  mark,  and  indications  were  re- 
marked of  freshets  having  sometimes  attained  the  height  of  16  feet  in  the  broadest 
parts  of  the  river.  The  influence  of  but  comparatively  slight  rains  is  very  perceptible 
in  the  floods  which  succeed;  and  from  their  freqirency  and  the  magnitude  of  the 
volume  which  passes  at  such  times,  we  have  ample  assurance  that  the  most  extensive 
reservoirs  (for  the  formation  of  which  the  valley  of  Greenbrier  is  so  admirably  adai^ted) 
could  be  replenished  as  often  as  might  be  necessary. 

To  revert,  however,  to  the  relative  elevation  of  the  Greenbrier  River,  and  of  the 
Alleghany  Mountains,  in  the  different  depressions  heretofore  recited,  we  readily  per- 
ceive that  the  supply  from  Greenbrier,  on  which,  as  was  premised,  the  practicability  of 
the  project  rests,  cannot  be  commanded  within  a reasonable  distance  without  resorting 
to  a tunnel;  for  the  greatest  depression  in  the  Alleghany  Mountains  being  1,092.75  feet 
above  the  base-mark,  while  the  elevation  of  Greenbrier  River  39  miles  above  Howard’s 
Creek  is  but  770.7  feet,  at  an  average  rise  of  10  feet  in  the  Greenbrier,  beyond  the 
point  to  which  it  was  leveled,  an  elevation  corresponding  to  that  of  the  most  clepres-ed 
point  of  the  Alleghany  would  not  be  attained  in  less  than  71  miles  from  the  mouth  of 
Howard’s  Greek,  and  supposing  thespurickich  projects  from  the  Alleghany,  between  the  waters 
of  Howard’s  and  Anthony’s  creeks,  (p.  768,)  sometimes  called  the  “ Greenbrier  Mountain,” 
(see  map  of  experimental  surveys,)  to  be  passed  without  winding  around  its  extremity 
near  the  mouth  of  Howard’s  Creek,  the  length  of  a feeder  from  the  summit-level  could 
not  be  much,  if  any,  less  than  would  be  the  distance  from  the  mouth  of  Howard’s 
Creek  to  the  assumed  elevation  of  the  summit-level  on  the  Greenbrier. 

Besides,  the  ruggeduess  and  steepness  of  the  hills  bordering  the  Greenbrier  may  be 
said  to  be  almost  in  proportion  to  the  elevation  above  the  stream  at  which  we  encoun- 
tered them;  and  on  that  account  it  would  be  desirable  to  run  the  feeder  as  low  as  pos- 
sible, adding  to  these  considerations  the  fears  which  might  reasonabW  be  entertained 
of  the  inadequacy  of  the  Greenbrier  to  supply  the  losses  of  so  long  a feeder  as  would  be 
required  to  pass  the  Alleghany  without  a tunnel,  and  the  necessity  of  a tunnel  would 
seem  to  be  obvious. 

This  conclusion  leads  us  to  compare  the  lengths  of  tunnels  at  different  elevations; 


APPENDIX  T. 


767 


■which,  limiting  the  depth  of  cutting  at  which  the  tunnels  are  supposed  to  commence 
and  terminate  at  35  feet,  are  now  exhibited  in  the  following  table : 

TABLE. 


6 

c 

Vx 

O 

u 

Designation  of  route. 

s| 

o > 

r=  O 

■-M 

.2  ® = 
c;  — as 
> 'Z  ^ 

i I 

I Length  of  out  east  of  ; 

the  Alleghany  Moun-  l 

tains. 

4-1 

o 

a 

C/ 

S 

V. 

c 

tx. 

Z 

the  Alleghany  Moun- 

1 tains. 

Length  of  tunnel. 

Feet. 

Miles 

Yards. 

Miles. 

Yards. 

Miles. 

Yards. 

1 

Erom  Dunlap’s  Creek  to  Second  Creek 

750 

1 

283 

0 

1, 173 

10 

867 

2 

From  Dunlap’s  Creek  by  Fork  Kuii  to  south 

fork  of  Howard’s  Creek 

750 

0 

400 

0 

547 

2 

210 

3 

From  Dunlap’s  Creek  by  Fork  Run  to  mid- 

dle fork  of  Howard’s  Creek 

750 

0 

400 

0 

1,000 

3 

800 

4 

From  Dunlap’s  Creek  by  middle  fork  of 

Ogley’s  Creek  to  Anthony’s  Creek 

750 

0 

727 

2 

943 

4 

883 

5 

From  Dunlap’s  Creek  by  Ogley’s  to  the  north 

fork  of  Howard’s  Creek.. 

750 

0 

383 

0 

1,285 

5 

1,523 

6 

From  Dunlap’s  Creek  by  Ogley’s  Creek  to 

the  middle  fork  of  Howard’s  Creek 

750 

0 

383 

0 

1,000 

6 

783 

1 

700 

1 

283 

0 

1,217 

11 

2 

700 

0 

430 

0 

1,017 

3 

333 

3 

700 

0 

430 

0 

901 

4 

317 

4 

700 

0 

717 

3 

500 

5 

1,716 

5 

700 

0 

300 

0 

860 

6 

1,  187 

6 

700 

0 

300 

0 

901 

6 

1,  500 

1 

650 

0 

440 

0 

1,550 

11 

933 

2 

6.50 

0 

350 

1 

73 

4 

3 

650 

0 

350 

0 

1,013 

5 

1.50 

4 

650 

0 

684 

1 

793 

9 

773 

5 

650 

0 

30 

0 

1,320 

7 

760 

f) 

650 

0 

30 

0 

1,013 

7 

547 

1 

600 

0 

293 

0 

1,  650 

11 

1,277 

2 

600 

0 

407 

1 

964 

5 

600 

3 

600 

0 

407 

1 

190 

5 

1,217 

4 

600 

0 

660 

1 

427 

10 

1,  067 

5 

600 

0 

283 

1 

156 

8 

720 

6 

600 

0 

283 

1 

190 

8 

383 

By  reference  to  the  foregoing  table,  it  is  at  once  perceived  that  within  the  assumed 
elevations  of  a summit-level  a shorter  tunnel  would  be  requisite  to  pass  the  Alleghany 
Mountain  by  the  second  or  third  routes  than  by  either  of  the  others  ; and  it  will  also  be 
seen  that  the  length  of  tunnel  increases  very  rapidly  on  either  of  those  routes  as  we 
descend  below  700  feet,  while  at  any  greater  elevation  the  diminished  length  of  tunnel 
does  not  constitute  a sufficient  advantage  to  compensate  for  the  increased  lockage,  the 
greater  length  of  feeder,  or  to  induce  us  to  forego  the  advantages  of  a reservoir  on  the 
Greenbrier  in  its  passage  through  the  Droop  Mountain,  when  the  fall  of  the  river  is 
known  to  be  greatest,  and  its  valley  so  contracted  that  the  least  area  in  proportion  to 
the  contents  of  the  reservoir  would  be  exposed  to  the  influence  of  evaporation. 

We  therefore  assumed  a summit-level  at  the  elevation  of  700  feet  above  the  base- 
mark,  and  from  its  western  end  on  the  second  route  a line  of  feeder  was  traced  at 
an  inclination  of  6 inches  per  mile  to  its  intersection  with  the  Greenbrier  River. 

This  line  from  the  relative  positions  of  the  routes  of  course  passed  them  all,  (except 
No.  1,  which  was  abandoned  because  of  its  excessive  length  of  tunnel,*)  and  enables 
us  to  determine  very  nearly  the  lenth  of  feeder  for  any  route. 

Deferring  at  this  time  the  more  detailed  account  of  the  difficulties  opposed  to  a 
feeder  in  its  progress  from  the  Greenbrier  River  to  the  summit-level  of  the  second 
route — which  as  yet  is  conspicuous  for  its  advantages  over  the  other  routes — it  may 

*To  recur  to  the  reasons  why  but  one  experiment  was  made  from  Dunlap’s  to  Sec- 
ond Creek.  The  great  length  of  tunnel  by  the  first  route  could  not  be  diminished  by 
any  route  to  Second  Creek,  for  the  mouth  of  Cove  Creek  (the  next  tributary  to 
Dunlap’s  Creek  above  Fork  Run)  is  600  feet  above  the  base-mark,  and  the  rise  in  Cove 
Creek  being  greater  than  in  Dunlap’s  Creek  we  should,  by  a route  through  Cove  Creek, 
have  to  commence  tunneling  at  even  a greater  distance  from  Second  Creek  than  by  the 
first  route.  Indeed,  a route  from  Dunlap’s  to  Second  Creek  would  be  impracticable  at 
any  rate,  in  consequence  of  its  distance  from  Greenbrier  River  and  of  the  character  of 
the  intermediate  country,  (p.  764.) 


768 


REPORT  OF  THE  CHIEF  OF  ENGINEERS. 


sujffice  our  preseut  purpose  to  state  tliat  the  spur  \thicb  was  spoken  of  (page  766)  as 
projecting  from  the  Alleghany  to  the  mouth  of  Howard’s  Creek,  or  which  lies  between 
Howard’s  Creek  and  the  Greenbrier  River,  constitutes  a great  objection  to  every  route 
but  the  fourth. 

So  circuitous  a route  for  the  feeder  as  that  around  the  extremity  of  the  spur  might, 
and  probably  would,  involve  such  losses  in  its  course  as  to  be  fatal  to  the  practica- 
bility of  the  project,  while  the  alternative  of  pa^^siug  the  spur  in  the  direction  indi- 
cated by  the  near  approach  of  two  opposite  tributaries  to  the  north  fork  of  Howard’s 
Creek  on  the  one  side,  and  to  Anthony’s  Creek  on  the  other,  however  it  may  diminish 
the  chance  of  an  inadequate  supply  of  water,  or  may  assure  us  of  a probable  super- 
abundance, is  fraught  with  difficulty. 

The  greatest  depression  in  the  ridge  intermediate  to  Howard’s  and  Anthony’s  Creeks 
is  at  the  sources  of  the  two  Tributaries  just  alluded  to,  through  which  it  had  been 
hoped  the  feeder  might  reach  the  valley  of  Anthony’s  Creek  by  an  open  cut,  or  a tun- 
nel of  moderate  length.  But  it  was  found  to  be  1,096  feet  above  the  base-mark,  and 
the  slope  on  either  side  is  so  gradual,  that  limiting  the  cuts  to  35  feet  depth,  a tunnel  of 
5 miles  and  1,620  yards  will  be  required,  (p.  772.) 

Were  the  summit-level  50  feet  or  even  100  feet  higher  than  has  been  assumed,  still 
the  length  of  tunnel,  to  pass  this  ridge,  would  be,  in  the  one  case,  4 miles  and  290 
yards,  and  in  the  other,  3 miles  and  533  yards.  But  the  considerations  which  hereto- 
fore induced  us  to  limit  the  elevation  of  the  summit  level  to  700  feet  caonot  safely  be 
waived;  and  therefore,  in  selecting  the  location  for  a feeder,  the  disadvantages  of  a 
tunnel  of  4 miles  and  1,620  yards,  by  one  route,  are  to  be  weighed  with  the  uncertain- 
ties attending  the  very  greatly-incr' ased  length  by  the  other. 

In  comparing  the  different  routes  for  a canal,  however,  and  the  practicability  of  each, 
we  shall  coniine  our  virw'  to  the  shorter  route  for  the  feeder,  and  on  that  supposition  the 
following  table  comprises  their  principal  characteristics  : 

TABLE. 


Xo.  of 
route. 

£ 

c 

o 

6 

Cut  west  of  the  Allo- 
ghaiiy. 

Length  of  tunnel. 

Length  of  the  summit- 
level. 

Distance  from  base- 
mark  to  summit- 
level. 

Distance  thence  to 
niouth  of  Howard’s 
Creek. 

Total  distance  from 
base -mark  to  mouth 
of  Howard’s  Creek. 

t>5 

n 

’Hi 

<s 

SH 

O 

_fcX) 

S 

Feeder  to  the  summit- 

level. 

IT.  Ydn. 

M.  Yds. . 

21. 

, Yds. 

JL  Yds. 

21.  Yd.s. 

IL  Yds. 

21.  Yds. 

Feet. 

21.  Yd.^. 

0 

0 ‘13() 

0 

1,  017 

3 

333 

4 ‘20 

‘20  913 

8 1,713 

33  866 

1,  092 

38  623 

3 

0 430 

0 

901 

4 

317 

4 648 

:^0  913 

8 880 

33  1, 631 

1,‘221 

35  1,183 

0 717 

3 

500 

5 

1,  716 

9 173 

16  220 

19  1, 000 

45  633 

1,772 

26  403 

5 

0 300 

0 

860 

6 

1,  187 

7 587 

11  1, 540 

9 130 

28  597 

1,534 

33  1,723 

6 

0 300 

0 

901 

6 

1,  500 

7 941 

11  1,540 

8 880 

27  1, 601 

1.  288 

35  1,183 

ISTote.— The  last  colurau  develops  the  length  of  the  feeder  as  actually  traced,  but  it  became  apparent 
on  plotting  the  work  that  judicious  deviations  from  the  first  trace  would  reduce  the  longest  leederto 
about  miles,  and  the  others  in  proportion. 


The  shorter  tunnel  required  by  the  second  route,  to  pass  the  Alleghany  Mountain,  is 
decisive  of  its  preference  over  any  route  but  the  fourth,  which,  being  nearer  the  Green- 
brier River,  and  alone  exempt  from  the  difficulties  which  attend  a feeder  to  any  sum- 
mit-level beyond  Anthony’s  Creek,  we  shall  compare  more  closely  with  the  second 
route. 

The  fourth  route  is  Ilf  miles,  the  longer  of  the  two;  and  the  length  of  its  tunnel 
through  the  Alleghany  exceeds  that  of  the  second  route  by  2 miles  1,483  yards  ; wffiile, 
by  the  fourth  route,  we  avoid  12  miles  of  feeder,  which  includes  a tunnel  of  4 miles  and 
1,620  yards. 

Now,  the  cost  of  constructing  12  miles  of  feeder,  even  with  a tunnel  of  4 miles  and 
1,620  yards,  certainly,  I think,  would  be  less  than  the  cost  of  2 miles  1,483  yards  of  a 
tunnel  of  such  dimensions  as  would  be  adapted  to  the  navigation  of  canal-boats  ; and, 
to  say  nothing  of  the  cost  of  Ilf  miles  of  canal,  on  the  score  of  comparative  expense, 
the  second  route  would  be  preferable  to  the  fourth.  If,  therefore,  it  shall  appear 
that,  notwithstanding  its  greater  length  of  feeder,  an  adequate  supply  may  be  de- 
pended on,  since  rhe  accomplishmeut  of  the  same  objects  would  result  from  the  adop- 
tion of  either  route,  the  difference  of  expense  in  favor  of  the  second  route  will  be  con- 
sidered conclusive  of  its  preference. 

Without  entering  into  a reca])itulation  of  all  the  calculations  to  be  found  in  Lieu- 
tenant Liilahunty’s  report,  relative  to  the  supjily  of  wuiter,  we  shall,  as  concisely  as 


APPENDIX  V. 


769 


may  be,  state  the  results  which  have, in  our  view,  established  the  practicability  of  the 
project  under  consideration. 

From  a careful  and  repeated  gauging,  at  intervals  duriug  two  successive  years,  of  the 
streams  on  which  we  rely,  we  hud  that  their  minimum  supply  was  as  follows,  viz  : 

• Cnbic  feet 
per  second. 


Greenbrier  River 48.  3 

Anthony’s  Creek *. 11.6 

Dunlap’s  Creek 9.  3 

Howard’s  Creek 6.  83 


Resides  which,  a reservoir  may  be  formed  on  the  Greenbrier  River,  above  tne  com- 
mencement of  the  feeder,  to  the  summit-level,  by  a dam  50  feet  high,  which  shall  con- 
tain 13,060,584.9  cubic  yards. 

To  compute  the  sufficiency  of  this  supply,  let  the  same  suppositions  apply  to  this 
route  as  were  adopted  by  the  United  States  board  of  internal  improvements  with  regard 
to  the  proposed  Ohio  and  Chesapeake  Canal. 

They  have  assumed  an  interruption  of  the  navigation  during  the  winter  season, 
which,  from  the  elevation  of  the  summit-level,  1,903  feet  above  the  ocean,  they  sup- 
])08e  to  include  the  four  months  of  December,  January,  February,  and  March.  The 
summit-level  of  the  proposed  James  and  Kanawha  Canal,  it  is  true,  is  farther  south, 
but  it  is  equally  elevated,  (1,940  feet  above  the  ocean,)  and  I have  not  perceived  any 
essential  difference  in  the  climate. 

During  such  a suspension  of  the  navigation,  if  we  only  adopt  67.6  cubic  feet  per 
second  as  the  mean  discharge  of  the  Greenbrier,  (whereas  we  believe  that  to  be  much 
less  than  the  mean  discharge  during  the  summer  mouths,)  it  will  be  found  that  the 
reservoir  would  be  filled  twice,  or  once  in  about  two  months ; and  if  we  add  to  this 
view  a computation  of  the  supply  we  may  reasonably  expect  from  rains,  the  replenish- 
ing of  the  reservoir  will  not  only  seem  certain,  but  the  superabundance  from  that 
source  alone  will  appear  more  than  ample  to  repair  all  losses  attributable  to  the  reser- 
voir ar  d feeder,  from  the  influence  of  evaporation,  absorption,  &c. 

From  an  iu8j)ection  of  the  map  of  Virginia,  and  our  own  knowledge  of  the  extent 
of  country  drained  by  that  part  of  Greenbrier  River  above  the  reservoir,  we  know  that 
the  sum  of  the  lengths  of  the  streams  exceeds  by  far  110  miles;  and  that  an  average  of 
the  widths  of  their  valleys  is  more  than  half  a mile.  But  if  we  assume  that  an  area  of 
but  55  square  miles  is  drained  by  the  upper  part  of  Greenbrier  and  its  tributaries,  and 
calculate  on  no  greater  annual  fall  of  rain  in  the  elevated  region  in  which  it  is  situ- 
ated than  was  observed  to  be  the  least  quantity  which  fell  in  the  vicinity  of  Baltimore 
in  any  one  year  during  a period  of  eight  years,  we  find  that  an  area  of  but  55  square 
miles  would  receive  during — 

^ Cubic  yards. 

The  fall  and  winter 78,  880,  384 

The  spring  and  summer 59, 117,  696 

The  whole  year 137,  998,  080 

From  which,  to  continue  the  reasoning  of  the  board,  it  is  seen — 1st,  that  two-thirds 
of  the  first  quantity,  or  52,586, 9::i9  cubic  yards,  is  more  than  four  times  as  much  as  will 
be  necessary  to  fill  the  reservoir  in  four  months  ; and  2(i,  that  59,117,696  cubic  yards, 
or  the  second  quantity,  is  equivalent  to  upward  of  100  cubic  feet  (102.63)  per  second, 
during  six  months,  and  might  be  deemed  the  mean  discharge  during  the  spring  and 
summer  mouths,  instead  of  67.6  cubic  feet,  which  wo  have  assumed  for  the  mean  sup- 
ply of  the  winter  mouths.  That  the  truth  of  this  last  deduction  may  be  less  doubtful, 
it  is  to  be  remarked  that  if  we  have  apparently  lost  sight  of  the  filtrations  and  evap- 
orations of  rain-water,  55  square  miles  is  by  no  means  equal  to  the  whole  extent  of 
country  drained  above  the  reservoir;  that  the  usual  quantity  of  rain  is  much  greater 
than  has  been  assumed;  and  that  our  own  observations  would  lead  us  to  believe  the 
mean  supply  of  Greenbrier  River  during  the  summer  months  to  be  more  than  100  cubic 
feet  per  second. 

However,  to  forego  further  speculation,  and  to  return  to  the  supply  of  water  on 
which,  by  the  most  unfavorable  supposition,  we  may  rely — omitting  at  this  time  the 
supply  from  Dunlap’s  Creek  and  Howard’s  Creek,  which  is  taken  in  below  the  summit- 
level — we.  have  a reservoir  with  an  area  of  2,503,333  square  yards,  whose  prism  of 
available  water  is  13,060,584  cubic  yards;  43.3  cubic  feet  per  second  from  Greenbrier 
River,  and  11.6  cubic  feet  per  second  from  Anthony’s  Creek  ; or,  a total  supply  from 
Greenbrier  and  Anthony’s  Creek  of  54.9  cubic  feet  per  second — say  55  cubic  feet. 

This  quantity  is  to  meet  the  losses  of  a feeder  33J  miles  long,  to  supply  the  lockage 
of  the  canal,  and  the  losses  by  filtration  and  evaporation  of  the  summit-level,  and  the 
portions  of  canal  on  either  side  of  it,  which,  together,  include  about  Ilf  miles — besides 
making  up  such  deficiency  as  may  arise  from  the  inadequacy  of  Dunlap’s  Creek,  to 
supply  about  17|  miles  of  canal;  and  of  the  Howard’s  Creek,  to  meet  the  losses  of  but 
4 miles  of  canal. 

49  E • ■ 


770  EEPORT  OF  THE  CHIEF  OF  ENGINEERS. 


We  impute  no  loss  to  the  reservoir  from  filtration  and  evaporation,  both  because  we 
are  assured  that  the  mean  discharge  from  Greenbrier  River,  beyond  what  we  have 
assumed  to  be  the  minimum,  renders  such  an  allowance  unnecessary,  and  because  the 
shape  of  the  valley  will  admit  tiie  raising  of  the  dam  to  any  height  to  add  to  the  res- 
ervoir a sufficient  quantitj'^  to  overbalance  it. 

We  may  calculate,  then,  on  a monthly  supply  of  1,632,573.1  cubic  yards  from  the 
reservoir,  5,168,888.08  cubic  yards  from  Greenbrier  River  and  Anthony’s  Creek,  or 
6,801,461.18  cubic  yards  for  the  total  monthly  supply".  From  this  quantity,  however, 
we  must  deduct,  to  obtain  that  available  at  the  summit-level,  the  losses  of  the  feeder 
in  its  course  from  Greenbrier  River.  With  an  area  for  its  transverse  section  of  10 
square  yards,  and  a length  of  33f*  miles,  the  feeder  will  contaijj  592,.535  cubic  yards, 
and  we  will  make  the  extravagant  supposition  that  it  may  lose  the  whole  of  its  prism 
every  15  days,  or  1,185,070  cubic  yards  per  month.  Deducting  this  quantity  from  the 
total  monthly  supply,  there  will  remain  5,616,391.18  cubic  yards,  which  is  thus  com- 
pared with  the  remaining  requisitions  dependent  on  it. 

Waiving  a particular  recital  of  the  arrangement  of  the  trade,  we  will  suppose  it 
limited  to  100  boats  per  day ; that  the  boats  pass  the  locks  alternately,  and  that,  con- 
sequently, no  boat  would  of  necessity  expend  more  than  one  lock-full  of  water  in  its 
passage  to  the  summit-level.  But,  as  a prudent  provision  for  contingencies,  let  it  be 
assumed  that  each  boat  will  require  a lock-full  and  a half,  or,  the  locks  being  of  the 
same  dimensions  as  were  proposed  for  the  Ohio  and  Chesapeake  Canal,  623  cubic 
yards.  The  monthly  allowance  for  lockage,  then,  if  3,000  boats  should  ])as3  the  sum- 
mit-level, Avill  be  1,869,000  cubic  yards,  which,  taken  from  5,616,391.18  cubic  yards, 
(the  available  supply  after  deducting  the  losses  of  the  feeder,)  leaves  3,747,391.18 
cubic  yards.  If  this  residue  were  all  that  we  could  command  to  supply  the  canal  in 
its  whole  course  from  the  mouth  of  Dunlap’s  Creek  to  the  mouth  of  Howard’s  Creek, 
a distance  of  about  miles,  whereas  not  quite  half  that  distance  is  dependent  on  it, 
it  would  abundantly  meet  all  the  losses  of  the  canal  from  absorjition,  tiltration,  and 
evaporation. 

But  let  us  add  to  this  residue  but  5 cubic  feet  per  second  for  the  supply  from  Dun- 
lap’s Creek — but  little  more  than  half  the  minimum  supply  we  have  ever  known  it  to 
yield — and  6 cubic  feet  per  second  from  Howard’s  Creek,  and  we  shall  realize  an  acces- 
sion to  our  monthly  supply  of  1,056,000  cubic  yards,  or  we  shall  have  143,384.8  cubic 
yards  per  month  per  mile  to  secure  the  canal  from  its  losses  by  evaporation,  absorp- 
tion, and  filtration,  an  allowance  equivalent*  to  nearly  90  cubic  feet  (89.6)  per  mile  per 
minute,  t 

The  relative  situations  of  the  Cheat  and  Greenbrier  Rivers,  wdth  the  opportunity  of 
forming  a succession  of  rovservoirs  in  the  valley  of  the  latter,  suggest  additional  secur- 
ity against  any  probable  failure  in  the  supply  of  water;  but  it  is  needless  to  amplify 
a discussion  already  so  far  extended  that  the  most  cautious  may  not  cavil  at  the  con- 
clusion that  a canal  frftm  the  James  to  the  Kanawha  River,  by  the  valleys  of  Dunlap’s 
and  Howard’s  Creeks,  is  demonstrably  practicable. 

To  the  determination  of  this  question,  I have  before  remarked,  all  the  preliminary 
operations  of  the  first  season  were  exclusively  directed  ; and,  so  far,  we  have  been  con- 
fined entirely  to  the  results  afforded  by  the  experimental  survey.  But,  pursuant  to  my 
instructions,  that,  “for  the  practical  works,  the  surveys  must  be  performed  in  such  a 
manner  as  to  afford  the  route  itself  of  the  work,  with  all  the  circumstances  of  the 
ground  wdiich  have  a bearing  upon  excavation,  embankment,  crossings  by  aqueducts 
and  culverts,  dams,  &c.,”  when,  in  May,  1827,  the  surveys  were  resumed,  the  precise 
location  of  a line  of  canal  from  the  respective  heads  of  boat-navigation  on  the  James 
and  Kanawha  Rivers  was  the  next  object  which  occupied  my  brigade. 

The  location  of  that  portion  of  canal  between  Covington  and  the  mouth  of  How- 
ard’s Creek  with  that  of  all  the  works  connected  with  the  summit-level,  such. as  feed- 
ers, reservoirs,  <&c.,  was  constituted  one  object,  and  its  accomplishment  assigned  to 
Lieutenants  Cook  and  Fessenden.  The  continuation  of  the  caiial  through  the  valleys 
of  Greenbrier  and  Great  Kanawha  Rivers,  from  the  month  of  Howard’s  Creek  to  the 
foot  of  the  Great  Falls,  with  all  the  considerations  incident  to  the  project,  another 
ol)ject,  the  accomplishment  of  which  was  iutrnsted  to  Lieutenants  Hazzard  and 
Thompson. 

The  reports  of  Lieutenants  Cook  and  Hazzard,  which  are  hereto  appended,  with  the 
different  maps  and  profiles  relating  to  the  route,  will  fully  exhibit  the  details  which  I 

^ See  table,  page  768. 

tThe  United  States  Board  of  Internal  Improvements,  in  their  report  of  October  23, 
1826,  on  the  Ohio  and  Chesapeake  Canal,  (page  54,)  admits  the  sufficiency  of  120.000 
cubic  yards  i)er  mile  per  mouth  as  an  allowance  for  absorption,  evaporation,  and  filtra- 
tion. And  Dr.  William  Howard,  United  States  civil  engineer,  in  his  “ report  on  the 
survey  of  a canal  irom  the  Potomac  to  Baltimore,”  remarks  that“li  cubic  feet  per 
second  per  mile  appears  a far  more  ample  allowance  than  will  be  needed  for  the  lock- 
age, evaporation,  and  filtration  of  a canal  i>laced  in  favorable  circumstances  for  retain- 
ing water.” 


APPENDIX  V. 


771 


may  omit  to  mention,  snch  as  the  lenj^th  of  each  level,  the  lift  of  each  lock,  the  trans- 
verse as  well  as  longitudinal  slope  of  the  ground,  including  the  works,  tlie  nature  of 
the  soil,  rocks,  &c.,  the  height  of  the  freshets.  It  will  remain  to  me,  however,  to  pre- 
sent a connected  and  more  general  view  of  the  whole  route. 

To  facilitate  a perspicuous  arrangement  of  the  subject,  let  the  first  section  extend 
from  the  James  to  the  Greenbrier  River;  the  second  section  include  that  portion  of  the 
canal  along  the  Greenbrier;  and  the  third  section  that  portion  between  the  mouth  of 
Greenbrier  and  its  teruiina  ion  at  the  foot  of  the  Great  Falls  of  Kanawha. 

First  section. — The  minuter  surveys  incident  to  the  locations  included  in  this  section, 
while  they  test  the  accuracy  of  the  experimental  surveys,  develop  results  somewhat 
different.  The  elevation  of  the  summit-level,  for  instance,  was  established  at  (594  feet 
instead  of  700  feet  as  heretofore  assumed,  and  the  depth  of  cutting  at  either  end  of  the 
tunnel  through  the  Alleghany  was  extended  to  50  feet,  instead  of  35  feet,  to  which,  in 
comparing  the  lengths  of  tunnels  by  the  different  routes,  we  had  limited  it.  The  rea- 
sons for  changing  the  elevation  of  the  summit- level  are  not,  perhaps,  important,  but 
the  depth  of  cutting  was  extended  to  50  feet  because  it  was  found  that  the  tunnel 
would  be  materially  shortened ; illustrative  of  which  fact  I would  add,  that  on  the 
western  side  alone,  the  length  of  the  tunnel  is  diminished  533  yards  by  extending  the 
cut  to  the  depth  of  50  feet. 

Dividing  this  section  into  three  parts,  the  first  subdivision  will  comprise  the  summit- 
level  and  all  the  works  belonging  to  it.  The  length  of  the  summit-level  is  4 miles  789 
yards,  which  distance  includes  a short  basin  of  98  yards  in  the  valley  of  Fork  Run  ; a 
deep  cut  at  the  eastern  end  of  the  tunnel  of  458  yards;  a tunnel  through  the  Alle- 
ghany of  2 miles  and  1,120  yards;  a cut  at  the  western  end  of  the  tunnel  of  1 mile  177 
yards,  and  a basin  from  the  termination  of  the  latter  cut,  which  extends  69S  yards. 

The  profile  of  the  ridge  immediately  over  the  tunnel  indicates  frequent  great  de- 
pressions, where  it  crosses  the  ravines  of  the  head  branches  of  Fork  Rnu  and  Tuckahoe, 
although  between  those  depressions  the  ridge  sometimes  attains  a very  great  height 
above  the  summit-level.  But  the  necessity,  and  to  what  extent,  of  sinking  shafts  in 
the  construction  of  the  tunnel,  where  those  depressions  do  not  exist,  will  be  better 
seen  by  designating  their  position  in  the  following  tabular  form: 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 


Num’oer  of  depressions. 


Distance  fi  om  the 
euci  of  the  deep 

cut  at  the  east- 
ern end  of  the 
tunnel. 

Height  of  depres- 
sion above  the 
summit-level. 

1 

Greatest  height  of 
inte  I- mediate 
ground. 

Distance  from  each 
depression  to  the 
oue  preceding. 

Mites. 

Yards. 

Feet. 

Feet. 

Yards. 

0 

50U 

160 

245 

500 

0 

740 

166 

203 

240 

0 

953 

126 

249 

213 

0 

1,183 

180 

230 

230 

0 

1,  516 

300 

374 

333 

1 

353 

276 

578 

597 

1 

773 

4.58 

5'0 

420 

1 

1,017 

515 

605 

244 

1 

1,677 

205 

706 

660 

2 

500 

130 

36S 

583 

2 

1, 120 

50 

384 

620 

End  of 
tunnel. 

In  relation  to  the  probable  formation  of  the  ridge  through  which  the  tunnel  would 
pass,  of  course  we  cannot  speak  with  any  certainty  ; but  appearances  at  and  near  the 
surface  in  the  vicinity  would  incline  us  to  expect  the  interposition  of  com[)act  sand- 
stone the  greater  part  of  tlie  distance.  The  cutting  at  either  end  of  the  tunnel,  it  is 
thought,  will  prove  as  favorable  for  its  depth  as  could  reasonably  be  expected  any- 
where; it  will  probably  consist  principally  of  an  argillaceous  slate  and  sandstone  of 
slaty  structure,  intermixed  with  a soil  (nearer  the  surface)  of  sand  and  clay. 

Feeder  from  the  Greenbrier  River  to  the  summit- level. — The  location  of  this  woik  does 
not  vary  materially  from  that  pursued  by  the  experimental  surveys.  Its  length  has 
been  diminished  to  31  miles  130  yards,  but  it  still  involves  a tunnel  of  5 miles  and  200 
yards.  The  same  formation  will  doubtless  be  encountered  by  this  tunnel  as  by  that 
through  the  Alleghany  Mountain  ; and  the  cutting,  at  either  end  of  tho  tunnel,  will  he 
similar  to  what  is  expected  in  the  deep  cuts  of  the  summit-level. 

The  height  of  the  ridge  above  the  surface  of  the  water  in  the  feeder,  at  different 
points  from  the  beginning  to  the  end  of  tae  tunnel,  is  shown  in  the  following  table : 


772 


REPORT  OF  THE  CHIEF  OF  ENGINEERS. 


Number  of  depressions. 

Distance  from  the 

end  of  the  deep  cut 

at  the  beginning  of 

the  tunnel. 

Height  of  depression 

above  the  surface 

of  t he  water  in  the 

tunnel. 

^ 3 

C 5 

9 

'Z  o 

£ 

Z u 

Distance  from  each 

depression  to  the 

one  preceding. 

Miles. 

Yards. 

Feet. 

Feet. 

Yards. 

1 

1,  260 

100 

262 

1, 260 

2 

1 

690 

153 

1!;9 

190 

3 

1 

1,006 

204 

253 

316 

4 

1 

1,374 

211 

351 

368 

5 

2 

409 

298 

547 

795 

fi 

2 

799 

373 

424 

390 

7 

2 

1,066 

419 

550 

267 

8 

2 

1,  426 

356 

604 

360 

9 

2 

1,  622 

482 

529 

196 

10 

3 

52 

513 

599 

190 

11 

3 

362 

772 

804 

310 

12 

3 

675 

718 

799 

313 

3 

888 

733 

747 

213 

14 

4 

15 

703 

929 

8s7 

15 

4 

155 

712 

777 

140 

16 

4 

435 

852 

898 

280 

17 ... 

4 

735 

897 

954 

300 

18 

4 

1,  235 

585  ( 

Descend- 

(  500 

19 

5 

200 

35) 

ing. 

\ 725 

The  tiiiiuel  begins  and  ends  where  the  cutting  is  about  35  feet  deep. 

It  will  have  been  observed  that  the  height  of  the  ridge  above  the  tunnel  far  exceeds 
the  height  of  the  depression  spoken  of,  (page  768,)  and  the  observation  leads  to  the  inquiry 
it  it  might  not  be  better  to  give  the  tunnel  the  direction  of  those  valleys  which  head  in 
that  de|)ression,  instead  of  a perfectly  straight  direction  through  the  ridge.  In  that 
event  the  greatest  height  of  the  ridge  above  the  tunnel  need  not  exceed  300  feet,  and 
the  prolile  will  show  that  on  both  sides  the  ground  rapidly  falls  to  within  150  feet  above 
the  tunnel. 

We  could  conform  to  the  direction  of  the  opposite  valleys,  and  continue  the  tunnel 
straight,  or  very  nearly  so,  till  it  reached  the  valley  at  Anthony’s  Creek,  wdien  one  turn 
would  be  necessary.  Its  length,  under  those  circumstances,  would  be  5 miles  and  950 
yards,  or  it  would  be  but  750  yards  longer  than  if  it  were  perfectly  straight.  I am, 
however,  rather  inclined  to  think  it  fortunate  that  such  appalling  difficulties  as  would 
obstruct  the  progress  of  a straight  tunnel  can  so  easily  be  diminished  than  to  hesitate 
in  recommending  the  longer  tunnel  because  of  its  increased  length  ; and  I would  there- 
fore add,  for  the  w'hole  length  of  the  feeder,  the  difference  between  the  lengths  of  the 
two  tunnels,  to  31  miles  200  yards. 

Lieutenant  Cook’s  report  will  furnish  every  other  fact  connected  with  the  feeder  from 
Greenbrier  River,  or  relative  to  the  reservoir  on  thar.  river.  The  feeder  from  Anthony’s 
Creek  he  has  omitted  to  mention  intersects  the  main  feeder  in  the  11th  mile  from  the 
summit-level;  it  is  one  mile  and  1,509  yards  long,  and  passes  down  the  right  shore  of 
Anthony’s  Creek  without  any  difficulty.  The  dimensions  of  the  dam  at  the  head  of  this 
feeder  are  shown  on  the  map. 

SECOND  SUBDIVISION. 

This  extends  from  the  eastern  end  of  the  summit-level  to  the  James  River,  opposite 
the  town  of  Covington,  and  includes  19  miles  and  73  yards  of  canal,  and  692  feet  of  lock- 
age, to  the  surface  of  a basin  suitable  to  the  reception  of  the  canal-boats. 

For  the  first  2 miles  and  1,072  yards  from  the  summit-level,  or  that  included  in  the 
valley  of  Fork  Run,  we  unavoidably  fall  264  feet;  preserving,  however,  with  some  ex- 
ceptions, in  which  resort  is  had  to  contiguous  locks,  a succession  of  short  levels,  con- 
nected by  locks  of  8 feet  lift. 

The  descent  from  the  first  to  the  second  level,  and  from  the  seventh  to  the  eighth 
level,  was  effected  by  two  contiguous  locks;  while  the  third  and  fourth  levels  are 
united  by  five,  and  the  tenth  and  eleventh  levels  by  four,  contiguous  locks. 

The  actual  descent  of  the  valley  in  positions  where  it  was  essential  to  conform  as 
much  as  possible  to  that  descent  to  avoid  rocky  and  precipitous  slopes,  which  w^ould 
else  have  been  encountered,  or,  in  other  cases,  expensive  and  deep  embankments  over 
broad  and  deep  ravines — in  fine,  a regard  to  the  various  circumstances  of  the  ground — 
sometimes  recommended  a combination  of  locks  in  preference  to  a succession  of  levels. 
Even  with  such  a disposition  as  was  made  of  the  locks,  the  canal  down  the  valley  of 
Fork  Run  passes  along  a very  steep  slope,  varying  from  12°  to  38°,  till  within  about 
f of  a mila  of  Dunlap’s  Creek,  when  it  occupies  a flat. 


APPENDIX  V. 


773 


For  the  remainder  of  this  subdivision  (16  miles  and  761  yards)  or  that  in  the  valley 
of  Dunlap’s  Creek,  the  canal  was  located  under  much  more  favorable  circumstances, 
the  fallbeinjy  much  less  in  a f^iven  distance  and  the  valley  much  wider.  As  I have  re- 
marked in  another  part  of  this  report,  bottom-lauds  alwsys  present  themselv(*8  on  one 
or  the  other  side  ; and  although  these  alternate  with  bluffs  and  occasional  cliffs,  which 
have  more  than  once  induced  us  to  cross  the  stream,  neither  the  lengths  nor  heights  of 
the  aqueducts  would  be  such  as  to  render  them  very  expensive.  It  may  be  satisfac- 
tory, however,  to  observe  that,  whatever  difficulty  may  have  presented  itself  on  one 
side,  the  creek  hasuever  been  crossed  till,  from  an  actual  experiment  on  both  sides,  it 
seemed  proper  to  do  so  ; and  the  field-uotes  may  therefore  be  referred  to  for  the  precise 
motives  which  determined  the  location  adopted  for  the  canal. 

From  the  mouth  of  Fork  Run  to  its  termination  opposite  Covington  the  canal  is 
divided  into  50  levels,  connected  with  each  other,  as  heretofore,  by  locks  of  8 feet  lift, 
except  in  three  instances,  where  the  descent  is  made  by  two  contiguous  locks.  The 
descent  from  the  last  level  to  the  basin  proposed  at  the  end  of  the  canal  is  effected  by 
a lock  of  12  feet  lift. 

The  excavation  along  Dunlap’s  Creek  will,  in  general,  be  of  the  easiest  kind,  through 
bottoms  or  along  hill-sides  of  sand  and  clay,  sometimes  mixed  with  argillaceous  slate. 
The  bottoms  aie  uniformly  comx^osed  of  a vegetable  mold  about  a foot  thick,  resting 
on  a bed  of  clay.  Linitstone  is  found  in  the  valley  of  Dunlap’s  Creek,  opposite  the 
canal,  near  Crow’s  tavern,  and  in  several  other  places  ; but  it  was  not  observed  to  in- 
tersect our  line  ; in  fact,  we  have  little  apprehension  that  the  canal  would  experience 
more  than  the  ordinary  losses  incident  to  Similar  works  favorably  situated  for  retain- 
ing water. 

Provision  was  made  for  the  introduction  into  the  canal  of  the  supply  afforded  by 
Dunlap’s  Creek  ,*  it  is  to  be  very  easily  effected  by  a short  feeder  of  but  610  yards’ 
length,  from  a dam  barely  high  enough  to  divert  the  course  of  the  stream.  The  situa- 
tion of  the  dam  is  not  far  below  the  mouth  of  Fork  Run,  and  the  level  into  which  the 
supply  is  introduced  is  2 miles  and  1,718  yards  from  the  summit-level. 

THIRD  SUBDIVISION. 

This  comprises  a succession  of  short  levels,  connected  by  single  locks  of  the  uniform 
lift  of  8 feet,  and  extends  from  the  western  end  of  the  summit-level  through  the  valley 
of  Howard’s  Creek  to  the  lefo  bank  of  Greenbrier  River.  It  includes  a ilfstance  of  8 
miles  and  155  yards  and  a descent  of  216  feet. 

It  is  unnecessary,  however,  to  dwell  upon  this  subdivision  ; it  presents  no  difficulty 
deserving  of  particular  comment,  and  all  its  features  are  sufficiently  developed  on  the 
map.  The  supply  from  Howard’s  Creek,  if  at  all  needed,  may,  perhaps,  with  most 
facility,  be  brought  into  the  sixteenth  level,  which  begins  just  below  a very  rapid 
part  of  the  creek.  A feeder  of  but  35.5  yards’  length,  with  a dam  20  yards  long  and  7 
feet  high,  would  be  sufficient. 

A review  of  the  first  section  of  the  canal  affords  the  following  summary  of  some  of 
its  principal  features 


Distance. 

No.  of 
locks. 

Ascent. 

Descent. 

.Tanifis  Tlivftr  to  summit, -Iftvftl 

Miles. 

19 

Yards. 

73 

86 

Feet. 

692 

Feet. 

Summit-level 

4 

789 

Summit-level  to  Greenbrier  Eiver 

8 

155 

27 

216 

Totfl,l  

31 

1,  017 

113 

692 

216 

Feeders. 

Length. 

From  Greenbrier  Fiver  to  summit-level 

From  Anthony’s  Cieek  to  main  feeder 

Miles. 

31 

1 

Yards. 
130 
1,  509 
610 

From  Dunlap’s  Creek  to  twenty -seventh  level  of  canal 

From  Howard’s  Creek  to  sixteenth  level  of  canal 

333 

Total  length  of  feeders 

33 

882 

I have  omitted  to  advert  to  the  diminished  contents  of  the  reservoir  on  Greenbrier 
River  resulting  from  Lieutenant  Cook’s  selection  of  the  site  fora  dam,  (see  his  rejmrt, 
page  787,)  because  no  doubts  as  to  the  adequacy  of  the  supply  have  arisen  from 
that  circumstance.  For  it  will  be  perceived  that,  by  increasing  the  height  of  the  dam 


774 


EEPORT  OF  THE  CHIEF  OF  ENGINEERS. 


to  60  feet,  we  can  reserve  1-1,000,000  cubic  yards,  instead  of  13,060,584,  on  which  latter 
quantity  our  former  leasoniiijr  was  predicated,  and  which,  it  has  been  showu,  would 
leave  a superabundance  beyond  all  the  wants  of  the  canal. 

Second  iecfion. — The  first  section  terminating  but  33  feet  above  low-water  mark, 
viz,  the  surface  of  canal,  it  is  thought  advisable  to  ])rolong  that  level  across  the  river; 
for  the  height  to  which  freshets  sometimes  rise  might  else  endanger  the  security  of  the 
aqueduct. 

The  length  of  the  aqueduct  under  those  circumstances  would  be  167  yards,  at  the 
end  of  which  wedesceud  by  two  locks,  of  8^^  feet  lift  each,  to  what  Lieutenant  Hazzard 
terms  his  first  level.  An  additional  supply  of  water  may  with  great  ease  be  intro- 
duced into  the  canal  on  either  side  of  the  river,  even  at  the  elevation  of  the  aqueduct. 
A feeder  on  the  left  shore  of  but  1,260  yards  in  length,  from  a dam  13  feet  high  and  108 
yards  long,  would  effect  the  object.  But  I think  it  to  be  preferred  that  the  new  supply 
be  admitted  just  beyond  the  aqueduct,  from  which  to  a dam  of  even  less  elevation  a 
shorter  feeder  along  the  right  shore  would  answer  equally  well. 

Arrived  at  the  first  level  beyond  the  a(iueduct,  the  location  of  this  section  was  con- 
tinued, under  various  circumstances,  to  its  termination  at  the  mouth  of  Greenbrier 
River.  The  cliffs  which  impinge  upon  the  stream,  and  which  at  times  the  canal  un- 
avoidably encounters,  may  rather  be  considered  exceptions  to  the  otherwise  generally 
favorable  nature  of  the  ground,  than  as  characterizing  this  section  as  at  all  remark- 
able for  the  extent  of  the  obstacles  to  its  eas3’’  execution. 

Its  length  is  49  miles  and  151  j^ards,  which  distance  is  subdivided  into  36  levels,  (the 
aqueduct  being  included,)  united  by  locks  of  the  uniform  lift  of  8 feet,  excepting  the 
two  locks  of  84  feet  lift  at  the  end  of  the  aqueduct  across  the  Greenbrier.  The  canal 
therefore  descends  297  feet  in  its  progress  to  New  River.* 

The  only  tributary  streams  of  any  consequence  crossed  by  this  section  of  canal  are 
Mill  Creek,  Muddy  Creek,  aud  Hunger’s  Creek;  the  first  requiring  an  aqueduct  100 
feet  long  aud  17^  feet  high,  and  the  two  others  aqueducts  of  but  50  feet  length  and 
17|  feet  Ijeight.  It  does  not  appear  advisable  to  introduce  either  of  them  into  the 
canal;  for  every  facility  exists  for  obtaining  an  abundant  supply  from  the  river,  to 
which  we  must  necessarily  resort.  Suitable  sites  for  dams  acioss  Greenbrier  very  fre- 
quentl^'  occur,  but  their  position  aud  dimensions  will  readily  be  seen  on  reference  to 
the  maps. 

On  the  left,  or  east  side,  as  we  descend  below  Howard’s  Creek,  the  number  and  mag- 
nitude of  the  tribut  iiy  streams  are  also  so  limited,  that  we  are  led  to  ascribe  the  in- 
creased size  of  Greenbrier  River,  observable  in  its  progress'to  New  River,  rather  to  the 
existence  of  numerous  springs  which  rise  within  or  near  its  bed  than  to  contributions 
from  more  distant  sources;  Second  Creek,  perhaps,  being  the  only  stream  from  the  left 
which  materially  adds  to  the  volume  of  the  river. 

Third  section. — This  extends  67  miles  and  779  yards,  and  includes  a total  descent  of 
762  feet  to  the  surface  of  a natural  basin  below  the  Great  Falls  of  Kanawha  River,  and 
it  is  the  peculiar  character  of  a portion  of  the  valley  included  in  this  section  which 
would  present  the  most  appalling  difficulties  to  the  construction  of  a canal. 

For  45  miles,  or  to  Bowyer’s  Feriy,  obstacles,  such  as  are  almost  continuous  between 
Bowj^er’s  Ferry  and  the  Gaule.y  River,  are  confined  to  but  a comparatively  small  por- 
tion of  the  distance,  but  below  Bowj’^er’s  Ferry  it  would  be  only  at  great  expense  that 
the  canal  could  be  protected  against  the  impetuosity"  of  a current  almost  resistless  dur- 
ing the  swollen  stages  of  the  river. 

This  is  exemplified  in  the  fact  that  freshets  sometimes  attain  the  great  height  of  35 
aud  even  50  feet  in  some  places,  within  whose  utmost  reach  there  could  be  no  security 
to  the  durability^  of  any  work,  and  from  the  nature  of  the  intermediate  space  between 
low-water  mark  aud  the  cliffs,  which  rise  nearly  perpendicularly  for  several  hundred 
feet ; for  notwithstanding,  even  below  Bowyer’s  Ferry,  there  is  generally  room  enough 
for  the  canal  between  low-water  mark  and  the  cliffs,  and  that  the  interval  may  never 
be  wholly  overflowed,  it  is  occupied  by  mssses  of  huge  rocks  exhibiting  a surface 
almost  too  irregular  to  be  defined.  These  rocks,  however,  may  be  converted  into  a 
kind  of  bench,  on  which  the  canal  could  be  sustained  beyond  the  reach  of  freshets,  and 
eventually  might  facilitate  ifs  construction  ; but  the  necessity  of  high  and  extensive 
walling  would  still  exist,  and  the  total  absence  of  any  suitable  material  for  puddling 
the  canal  would  be  irremediable  except  at  the  cost  and  trouble  of  procuring  it  from  a 
distance,  unless,  indeed,  clay  of  a proper  consistency  be  obtained  near  the  verge  of  the 
cliffs,  when  this  latter  source  of  expense  may"  be  very  much  diminished  from  the  ease 
with  which  it  might  be  deposited  at  convenient  intervals  along  the  line. 

The  rocks  at  the  foot  of  the  cliffs  have  every  appearance  of  having  at  some  period 
been  precipitated  from  different  points  of  the  cliffs,  and,  although  ages  may  have  since 
elapsed,  it  must  be  obvious  that  it  would  be  impossible  to  secure  any  work  at  the  base 
of  the  cliffs  against  the  destiuctive  effects  of  a similar  occurrence.  It  is  not  con- 

*The  Great  Kanawha  River  is  more  familiarly  known  as  New  River  above  its  conflu- 
ence with  the  Gauley  River. 


APPENDIX  V. 


775 


ceiv'ed,  however,  that  much  importance  is  due  to  this  suggestion,  since  there  is  little 
proLability  that  such  masses  as  those  alluded  to  would  in  future  be  detached,  unless 
by  some  extraordinary  convulsion  of  nature  beyond  what  we  have  reason  to  anticipate. 

Above  Bowyer’s  Ferry  the  valley  is  much  wider,  and,  although  the  canal  would  fre- 
quently occupy  steep  slopes,  such  difficulties  as  exist  below  are  not  to  be  apprehended 
either  from  the  heights  of  freshets  or  the  perpendicularity  of  the  banks.  No  trace  was 
perceived  of  the  water  ever  having  risen  more  than  thirteen  feet  above  its  ordinary 
channel  until  within  a few  miles  of  Bowyer’s  Ferry,  and,  with  the  exception  of  a few 
places  designated  by  Lieutenant  Hazzard  as  requiring  walling  to  protect  the  canal, 
there  is  comparatively  but  little  difficulty  in  sustaining  the  line  beyond  the  reach  of 
freshets. 

The  tributaries  to  New  River,  between  Greenbrier  and  the  Gauley  Rivers,  are  few 
and  uuimportaut;  and  the  Great  Falls  of  Kanawha,  two  miles  below  the  Gauley,  des- 
ignates as  well  the  commencement  of  an  entirely  different  country  from  that  above  as 
the  termination  of  our  ideal  section. 

Tug  Falls,  Buffalo  Falls,  Richmond  Falls,  and  the  Great  Falls,  with  an  almost  con- 
tinuous rapid,  when  perpendicular  falls  do  not  occur — in  all,  constituting  a spectacle 
the  sublimity  of  which  can  scarcely  be  surpassed — characterize  New  River  below  its 
confluence  with  the  Greenbrier  as  an  impetuous  and  almost  resistless  torrent.  And 
the  general  aspect  of  both  sides  of  the  river,  with  the  wild  features  of  its  valley,  can 
offer  few  temptations  to  the  intrusion  of  civilized  man.  B it  the  Great  Kanawha  ma- 
jestically pursues  its  placid  course  through  a rich  and  fertile  valley,  and  is  said  to 
present  but  few  obstructions  to  a perfect  navigation  from  the  falls  to  the  Ohio  River. 

The  general  structure  of  the  country  below  Greenbiier  River  is  based  on  sandstone 
(gray  and  red)  or  a compact  limestone,  and  coal  of  an  excellent  quality  exists,  in  ex- 
haustless quantities,  from  Sewell  Mountain  westward. 

Having  now  sufficiently  reviewed  the  several  sections  in  detail,  the  following  sum- 
mary of  the  whole  route  will  conclude  the  subject  which  has  heretofore  occupied  us : 

SUMMARY. 


Distance. 

Lockage. 

James  River  to  the  Greenbrier  River 

Miles. 

31 

Yards. 
1,  017 

In  feet. 
908 

Thence  to  New  River 

49 

151 

297 

Tlienee  to  the  ha, sin  below  the  Great,  Ea.lla  

C7 

779 

762 

Total 

148 

187 

1,967 

ROANOKE  AND  KANAWHA  CANAL. 

On  completing  the  surveys  relating  to  a canal  from  James  River  to  the  Great  Ka- 
nawha, those  having  reference  to  other  objects  enumerated  in  my  instructions  were 
immediately  undertaken;  and  although  a detailed  report  on  the  Roanoke  and  Ka- 
nawha Canal  is  unavoidably  postponed  till  the  drawings  illustrative  of  the  su  rvey 
shall  be  more  advanced,  a brief  summary  of  the  more  important  facts  may,  at  this  time, 
be  satisfactory,  as  it  will  suffice  to  show  the  great  facility  with  which  those  riveis  may 
be  united. 

The  experimental  surveys,  which  extended  along  the  Alleghany  Mountain,  from  the 
southern  source  of  one  of  "the  branches  of  the  North  Fork  of  Roanoke,  beyond  Christ- 
iansburg  on  the  north,  to  the  South  Fork  of  Elliot’s  Creek  on  the  south,  indicate  the 
existence  of  frequent  great  depressions  in  the  dividing  ridge,  or  rather  a general  de- 
pression of  the  Alleghany  Mountain,  in  its  course  between  the  waters  of  the  Roanoke 
and  those  which,  flowing  westward,  empty  into  Little  River. 

But  the  point  which  imposingly  presents  itself  as  offering  superior  advantages  for 
the  passage  of  the  Allegheny  by  a canal  is  at  the  sources  of  the  North  Fork  of  Elliot’s 
Creek,  a tributary  to  the  South  Fork  of  Roanoke,  and  “ Green  Head  Branch  ” of  Meadow 
Creek,  a tributary  to  Little  River. 

An  abundant  supply  of  water  might  be  obtained  from  Little  River,  even  were  our 
summit-level  of  the  same  elevation  as  that  of  the  very  top  of  the  mountain,  in  the 
depression  alluded  to  ; but  apprised  of  that  fact  from  the  results  of  our  experimental 
surveys,  sufficient  considerations  recommended,  notwithstanding,  a location  of  the 
canal  in  the  following  manner: 

The  summit-level  commences  on  the  east  side  with  a cut,  which  in  1,320  yards  attains 
its  greatest  depth  of  30  feet,  (above  the  surface  of  the  canal,)  and  terminating  on  the 
west  side  144  yards  beyond  the  end  of  the  cut,  includes,  iu  all,  1,404  yards. 

The  canal  then  descends,  through  the  valley  of  Meadow  Creek,  to  Little  River,  and 


776 


REPORT  OF  THE  CHIEF  OF  ENGINEERS. 


thence  along  Little  River  to  Nevr  River,  under  circumstances  as  favorable  as  might  be 
expected,  no  difficulties  occurring  worthy  of  comment  at  this  time;  the  distance  from 
the  summit-level  to  the  latter  point  being  10  miles  769  yards,  and  the  fall  288  feet.* 
From  the  mouth  of  Little  River  it  is  prolonged  on  the  right  bank  of  New  River  to  its 
intersection  with  the  James  and  Kanawha  Canal ; and  to  the  mouth  of  Greenbrier,  for 
most  of  the  distance,  the  canal  occupies  very  iavorable  ground  through  extensive  llats 
which  border  on  the  river. 

These  flats,  however,  are  not  continuous,  and  frequently,  for  short  di.stances,  we  must 
encounter  cliffs  which  impinge  upon  the  streams ; but,  with  the  remark  that  the  dif- 
ference is  rather  in  favor  of  the  valley  of  New  River,  we  shall  not  create  an  erroneous 
impression  if  we  refer  to  the  location  down  the  Greenbrier  as  the  standard  by  which 
we  may  judge  of  that  between  Greenbrier  and  the  mouth  of  Little  River. 

Returning  to  the  summit-level,  the  descent  on  the  eastern  side,  until  we  arrive  within 
half  a mile  of  the  main  valley  of  the  North  Fork  of  Elliot’s  Creek,  is  sucli  as  to  neces- 
sitate a succession  of  short  levels,  and  the  canal  falls,  by  locks  of  8 feet  lift,  120  feet 
in  but  1 mile  485  yards;  the  next  11  miles  115  yards  bring  us  to  the  mouth  of  Elliot’s 
Creek,  and  comprise  62  le'  els  and  a descent  of  496  feet ; whence,  through  the  wide  and 
fertile  valley  of  the  South  Fork  of  the  Roanoke,  the  location  extended  to  the  forks, 
where  the  fleld-operations  of  the  brigade  terminated  for  the  season. 

The  distance  from  the  mouth  of  Elliot’s  Creek  to  the  termination  of  the  canal,  near  • 
the  forks  of  the  Roanoke,  is  9 miles  1,320  yards,  and  the  fall  200  feet.t  The  canal,  there- 
fore, from  the  mouth  of  tbe  Greenbr  ier  River  to  the  latter  point,  includes  an  ascent  of 
657,7  feet,  in  a distance  of  94  miles  106  yards,  (the  distance  from  the  Greenbrier  to  the 
mouth  of  Little  River  being  83  miles  and  1,097  yards,  and  the  rise  369.7  feet,)  a sum- 
mit-level of  1,464  yards,  and  a descent  in  22  miles  and  100  yards  of  816  feet;  or  the 
total  distance  is  116  miles  and  1,730  yards,  and  the  lockage  1,473.7  feet. 

SUPPLY  OF  WATER. 

It  is  the  great  facility  with  which  this  is  obtained  that  so  distinctly  characterizes 
the  connection  in  view  as  one  so  very  feasible  in  its  execution.  Little  River,  on  which 
the  summit-level  is  dependent,  was  found  to  yield  at  its  lowest  stage  nearly  100  cubic 
feet  per  second,  when  its  supply  can  be  commanded  by  a feeder  but  9 miles  and  1,225 
yards  long. 

IMlot  Mountain,  howevfr,  which  lies  between  Little  River  and  the  summit-level, 
preserves  such  an  elevated  character,  that  the  feeder  can  only  pass  it  by  a tunnel  of  1 
mile  and  290  yards’ length.  We  might,  indeed,  wind  along  the  slope  of  the  mountain, 
but  it  would  so  very  greatly  increase  the  length  of  the  feeder,  that  there  can  be  no 
hesitation  in  preferring  a tunnel.  In  other  respects,  the  construction  of  the  feeder 
would  be  attended  with  little  difficulty. 

The  supply  from  Little  River  alone  would  be  ample  to  all  the  wants  of  the  canal 
from  New  River  to  the  forks  of  the  Roanoke ; but  a reference  to  the  report  of  Lieuten- 
ant Fessenden,  which  exhibits  tbe  discharge  of  the  two  branches  of  the  Roanoke,  of 
Elliott’s  Creek,  of  Meadow  Creek,  and  the  increased  size  of  Little  River,  in  its  progress 
to  its  mouth,  will  show  the  abundance  of  its  other  resources. 

Of  the  practicability,  therefore,  and  comparative  ease  with  which  the  Roanoke  may 
be  united  to  the  Kanawha  by  means  of  a canal,  the  brief  statement  of  facts  which  we 
have  given  will  have  been  sufficient  to  dispel  all  doubt,  and,  on  that  conviction,  we 
might  forego  all  further  discussion  of  the  subject,  but  that  a few  other  remarks  natu- 
rally suggest  thfmselves  as  neither  uninteresting  nor  entirely  irrelative. 

If  the  connection  be  regarded  merely  as  an  avenue  for  the  trade  of  the  Ohio  Valley, 
its  importance  in  that  light  may'doubtless,  at  some  future  day,  elicit  tbe  effort  to 
overcome  those  obstacles  between  Bowyer’s  Ferry  and  the  Great  Falls,  which  consti- 
tute almost  the  sole  impediment  to  its  comparatively  easy  execution.  But  should  the 
magnitude  of  these  obstacles  be  considered  sufficient  forever  to  discourage  the  enter- 
prise of  a nation,  the  importance  of  the  connection,  although  diminished,  is  yet  con- 
spicuous. New  River,  for  perhaps  100  miles  above  the  mouth  of  Little  River,  it  is  said, 
traverses  a country  rich  in  mineral  and  agricultural  products,  and  its  navigation  may 
prove  easily  susceptible  of  great  improvement,  while  the  direction  of  Reed  Creek,  a 
tributary  of  New  River,  above  its  confluence  with  Little  River,  is  pariicularly  spoken 
of  as  promising  facilities  for  effectuating  a connection  with  the  Middle  Fork  of  the 
Holstein. 

Of  this  I cannot  speak  from  personal  observation,  nor  from  information  entirely  au- 
thentic, yet  the  concurrent  opinions  of  individuals  acquainted  with  the  country  would 


* The  bench  at  the  mouth  of  Little  River,  on  the  right  bank,  is  290  feet  below  the 
summit-level,  and  16  feet  above  low- water  mark. 

tThe  1 euch-mark  near  the  mill  at  the  forks  of  the  Roanoke  is  831  feet  below  the 
summit-level. 


APPENDIX  V. 


777 


seem  to  warrant  a belief  in  the  practicability  of  a canal  from  New  River  to  the  Hol- 
stein ; and  the  relative  situation  of  the  Tennessee  and  Alabama  Rivers,  as  delineated 
on  every  map,  renders  it  by  no  means  improbable  that  they,  also,  mif^ht  be  united. 
Thus  it  is  possible,  and  I mi^ht  even  say  within  the  scope  of  probability,  that  a canal 
from  the  Roanoke  to  the  Kanawha  may  at  some  future  day  be  re<>jarded  but  as  the  last 
link  in  a chain  of  inland  communication  from  the  Gulf  of  Mexico  to  the  Chesa{)eake. 

From  “a  due  investit;atiou  of  the  hydro<j;raphy  ami  topography  of  the  country,”  it 
is  certain  that  “ no  other  routes  ” than  those  which  have  been  described  j>osses8  similar 
advantages  for  uniting  either  the  James  or  Roanoke  River  with  the  Kanawha  by  means 
of  a canal. 

The  country  between  Knapp’s  Cn  ek,  a branch  of  the  Greenbrier,  and  Back  Creek,^a 
tributary  to  .Jackson’s  River,  and  between  Craig’s  Creek  and  Sinking  Creek,  opposite 
tributaries  to  Jackson’s  and  New  Rivers,  was  said  to  atford  some  facilities  for  a canal 
from  the  James  to  the  Kanawha  River,  and  was,  in  consequence,  reconnoitered.  But  it 
)s  apparent  that  no  route  in  either  of  those  directions  can  present  any  claim  to  further 
examination,  (see  Lieutenant  Dillahunty’s  report,  page  800,)  and  the  conclusion  is 
equally  obvious,  from  our  pref^ent  knowledge  of  the  country,  that  the  James  River 
cannot  be  united  by  a canal  with  the  waters  of  the  Great  Kanawha  by  any  route  below 
the  valley  of  Dunlup’s  Creek,  unless,  indeed,  as  is  highly  probable,  a canal  from  James 
River  through  the  valley  of  Catawba  Creek  be  found  practicable  to  the  R lauoke. 

The  examination,  however,  of  the  country  iuTermediate  to  the  Roanoke  and  .James 
Rivers,  with  reference  to  a canal  or  railroad,  is  one  of  those  objects  enumerated  in  my 
instructions  whicb  as  yet,  trom  the  want  of  time,  have  been  omitted. 

Of  the  practicability  of  a railroad  from  the  Janies  or  Roanoke  River  to  the  Great 
Falls  of  Kanawha  there  cannot  reniiin  a doubt;  and  the  surveys  which  have  been 
made  of  the  intermediate  country  will,  in  general,  furnish  ample  means  for  deciding 
on  the  most  proper  routes.  A single  glance  at  the  topography  precludes  all  hesitation 
in  selecting,  for  a railroad  from  .James  River,  some  one  of  the  routes  surveyed  for  a 
canal  in  preference  to  a more  direct  route  over  the  high  and  numerous  ridges  which 
intervene  between  the  Greenbrier  and  Gauley  Rivers. 

To  be  more  explicit,  however,  with  such  deviations  only  as  would  result  from  the 
different  characters  of  the  two  works,  the  route  w hich  has  been  adopted  for  a canal  as 
far  as  the  mouth  of  Muddy  Creek  wmuld  be  pursued  for  a railroad.  A doubt  is  sug- 
gested as  to  the  best  direction  for  continuing  the  route  beyond  that  point  only  because 
it  is  possible  that  a route  through  the  valley  of  Muddy  Creek  and  across  to  Meadow 
River,  a tributary  to  the  Gauley  (from  the  circumstance  of  there  being  but  one  ridge 
betw'eeu  Muddy  Creek  and  Meadow  River)  may  be  found  to  possess  advantages  which 
may  bring  it  in  competition  with  a route  through  the  valleys  of  Greenbrier  and 
Kanawha  Rivers. 

But  supposing  it  to  pursue  the  same  route  as  the  canal,  as  is  thought  most  probable, 
theleugtnof  a railroad  from  Covington  to  the  Great  Falls  of  I^auawha  would  lie  about 
148  miles,  with  a rise  and  fall  of  2,763  feet,  on  the  supposition  of  passing  the  Alleghany 
without  a tunnel. 

The  surveys  from  the  Roanoke  do  not  altogether  determine  the  best  route  for  a rail- 
road to  New  River,  beyond  which  it  w’ould,  of  course,  continue  down  the  valley.  But 
the  discovery  that  the  Alleghany  is  nearly  as  low  at  one  of  the  sources  of  the  North 
Fork  of  the  Roanoke  near  Christiansburg  as  on  the  route  proposed  for  the  canal,  with 
the  fact  of  the  direction  of  the  Norih  Fork  being  such  as  to  afford  a shorter  route  than 
cue  up  the  valley  of  the  South  Fork,  makes  it  more  than  probable  that  a railroad  from 
the  Roanoke  would  cross  the  Alleghany  in  the  vicinity  of  Christiansburg. 

However,  whatever  may  be  the  deviation  from  jOur  location  of  the  canals  by  the  sub- 
stitution of  railroads  in  their  stead,  they  cannot  be  so  material  as  to  interfere  with 
those  general  considerations  which  may  determine,  from  what  has  now’  been  stated, 
the  comparaiive  mt^rits  of  railroads  and  canals  as  the  means  of  uniting  the  James  or 
Roanoke  River  with  the  Great  I^^auawha. 

Having  now"  briefly  adverted  to  the  operations  of  my  brigade  subsequent  to  the  com- 
pletion of  the  surveys  relating  to  a canal  from  the  James  to  the  ICanawdia  River,  in 
concluding  this  report  I may  be  permitted  to  advert  to  the  causes  which  have  delayed 
its  completion  beyond  the  period  at  which  the  Department  may"  have  had  reason  to 
expect  it.  A reitort  simply  on  the  James  and  Kanawha  Canal  could  have  l)een  pre- 
sented at  the  commencement  of  the  present  session  of  Congress  but  for  circumstances 
entirely  unfore  eeu.  I allude  to  the  experimental  surveys  in  relation  to  the  Baltimore 
and  Ohio  Railroad,  which  were  undertaken,  with  the  assistance  of  my  brigade,  as  late 
as  the  latter  part  of  November  and  continued  through  a considerable  portion  of  the 
inclemency  of  w"inter,  when  heretofore  it  has,  in  all  cases,  occurred  that  the  maps  and 
profiles  illustrative  of  the  operations  of  the  smnmer-season  have  immediately  succeeded 
our  return  to  winter-quarters  ; and  since  the  completion  of  those  exj)erimental  surveys 
I have,  from  an  impression  that  it  would  be  more  satisfactory  to  present  an  equally 
detailed  report  on  both  the  James  and  ICanawflia  and  Roanoke  ami  Kauaw'ha  Canals 
alternately,  employed  myself,  till  within  a few  days  only,  on  the  former  subject  and  on 


778 


REPORT  OF  THE  CHIEF  OF  ENGINEERS. 

a report  on  the  Baltimore  and  Ohio  Railroad,  awaiting  a more  advanced  state  of  the 
drawings  to  collate  the  facts  essential  to  an  equally  detailed  report  on  the  Roanoke  and 
Kanawha  Canal.  Time  has  not  sufficed,  however,  to  execute  fully  my  intentions. 
Which  is  most  respectfully  submitted  by,  sir,  your  very  obedient  servant, 

Wm.  G.  McNkill, 

Captain  United  States  Topographical  Engineers. 

Topographical  Ofi^ice, 

Gcorgetoicn,  March  24,  1828. 


APPENDIX. 

CONTAINING  REPORTS  FROM  LIEUTENANTS  COOK  AND  KAZZARD,  ILLUSTRATIVE  OF  THE 

LOCATION  OF  THE  JAMES  AND  KANAWHA  CANAL,  WITH  REPORTS  FROM  LIEUTENANTS 

DILLAHUNTY  AND  FESSENDEN  ON  THE  SUl'PLY  OF  WATER. 

Georgetown,  D.  C.,  March  10,  1828. 

Sir:  I herewith  submit  to  you  the  results  of  those  operations  which,  in  compliance 
with  your  instructions  of  May  3,  1827,  occupied  the  party  under  my  command  until 
those  instructions  were  fulfilled.  They  relate  to  the  location  of  a line  of  canal  from 
Covington,  on  Jackson’s  R»ver,  to  the  Greenbrier  River,  by  the  route  designated  in  your 
instructions  to  me,  as  well  as  the  location  of  every  work  connected  with  it,  such  as 
feeders,  reservoirs,  dams,  &c. 

Dividing  the  line  of  canal  into  three  parts,  of  which  the  first  includes  the  summit- 
level,  the  second  the  portion  east  of  it,  and  the  third  the  descent  to  the  Greenbrier 
River,  I proceed,  to  enumerate  the  details  of  each  subdivision. 

FIRST  SUBDIVISION. 

This  includes  a tunnel  of  2 miles  and  1,120  yards,  two  cuts  of  50  feet  each  in  depth 
and  two  basins;  together  constituting  the  summit-level,  which  comprises  4 miles  and 
789  yards.  Its  elevation  is  694  feet  above  the  base-mark.  Further  details  in  relation 
to  this  subdivision  are  omitted,  because  they  have  already  been  furnished  you. 

second  SUBDIVISION. 

To  avoid  the  constant  repetition  of  facts  which  so  frequently  recur,  a table  has  been 
formed  to  present  at  one  view  the  details  belonging  to  each  level  of  this  subdivision. 
To  render  it  entirely  intelligible,  by  the  first  level  is  meant  that  to  which  we  descend 
ftom  the  summit-level  by  the  first  lock;  the  number  of  locks  uniting  adjacent  levels 
refer  to  the  number  between  each  level  and  the  one  preceding  ; the  length  of  the  level 
is  made  to  include  the  space  occupied  by  the  locks  uniting  it  with  the  adjacent  level. 
The  length  and  height  of  acqueducts  and  culverts  are  in  feet,  length  of  walling  in 
yards,  aud  the  height  in  feet  above  the  bottom  of  the  stream  which  it  rests  in. 


Defails  heJonging  to  each  level  of  the  second  stthdivision  of  the  contemplated  canal  from  Covington,  on  Jackson's  Biver,  to  the  Greenbrier  Biver. 


APPENDIX  V, 


779 


3 S S 

fall 


Sooocooocoooooooccooooooooooooo  o o 

C'O'B'S'C’w'C'C'C'O 


• • •^'C-C'T3  tjTJ< 

: : : ^ ^ 


I 


4 


;0  O O • o CO  'CD 


43  : : : : : : 


•e5tDO[JO 

.laqran^ 


HOrHi-HrHCNr-l.-l'^TH— ' — rHrHrHCJi 


I 0<  rH  r-l  »-( 


o 

u 

r 


|liSiS2iiSli2i2s2riiSs3lgls22i?°  I i S iSilS? 

S o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O OO  OO  O O O O O O O O O O ri  o o o ooocoo 

J 


•18A9[  JO 

aaqmnx 


^7ir^^^-^r^ODOO-3.«;^ooj^;«^.o-cjg=^«or;jaooo-  ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ o 


Details  belonging  to  each  level  of  the  second  subdivision  of  the  contemplated  canal  from  Covington,  ifc. — Coutiniiecl. 


780 


EEPOKT 


OF  THE  CHIEF  OF  ENGINEERS. 


*S>[00| 

jaqcun^ 


O O 'O  o o 
H o O O CO  o 


o o o o o o o 


O CO  O O O 05  O O O 

CO'^CO  Qi  to 

r-irHt'-  CO  lO’^COQCr-  — T-»rMr-l 


r-  CO  CO  o CO 
^ o CO  00  CO 
Oi  CO  CM  Oi 


o o o 


o ooooooooo 


ooooooooooo 


C50t-»  W'^iccor-QOCiO—  cc^iocor-xcio— ‘C^co 
-Vioo  o iOOOiOlOlOOCOCO  CO  COCOCOCOCOCOC0  4-i-t-t>* 


•19A0I  JO 

aequinx 


rr  TT  rr  •n' 


0M2  feet. 


APPENDIX  V. 


781 


From  the  foregoing  table  it  may  seem  that  some  objectionable  features  attend  the 
location  of  the  canal,  such  as  the  occurrence  of  contiguous  locks  in  live  places,  the 
crossing  of  Fork  Run  and  Dunlap’s  Creek  by  aqueducts,  and  the  deep  cuttings  in  the 
sixty-second  level.  The  reasons  which  influence  me  in  each  instance  will  therefore  be 
detailed.  The  levels  along  Fork  Run,  from  the  descent  of  its  valley,  necessarily  had 
to  be  very  short.  The  length  of  the  first  level  was  greater  than  could  have  been  the 
average  by  single  locks,  and,  to  avoid  contiguous  locks,  on  that  account  alone  we 
should  have  terminated  it.  But  a single  lock  Avould  have  brought  the  next  level  in 
contact  with  unfavorable  ground,  necessitating  eitlitr  a circuitous  route  around  a 
ravine  or  an  embankment  across  it;  and,  to  diminish  the  difficulty,  we  descended  at 
once  by  two  locks. 

At  the  end  of  the  third  level  the  same  reasons  for  five  contiguous  locks  obtained,  but 
to  a greater  degree;  the  ground  was  exceedingly  steep  at  the  elevation  at  which  we 
were  above  the  stream,  and  a wider  and  deeper  ravine  was  before  us. 

The  seventh  level  w'as  teiminated  by  two  contiguous  locks,  that  the  eighth  level 
might  occup3^  the  most  favorable  ground,  and  the  tenth  level  was  terminated  by  four 
contiguous  locks  to  avoid  a high  and  precipitous  cliff  of  sandstone. 

Thus  far  the  left  shore  was  the  preferable  one,  but  thence  to  the  mouth  of  Fork  Run 
the  right  was  decidedly  better,  because  of  the  frequent  occurrence  on  the  left  shore  of 
steep  and  rocky  ground.  We  therefore,  on  arriving  at  the  end  of  the  tenth  level, 
descended,  in  order  to  cross  as  soon  as  possible;  and  to  do  so  with  the  shortest  and 
lowest  aqueduct,  we  resorted  to  two  locks.  In  the  valley  of  Dunlap’s  Creek  the 
descent  from  an  upper  to  a lower  level  is  only  in  three  places  effected  by  two  contigu- 
ous locks.  In  the  first  two  cases  it  was  to  shorten  the  distance  to  avoid  very  steep 
ground  and  to  take  advantage  of  very  favorable  flats.  In  the  last  case  it  was  to  dimin- 
ish the  height  of  walling  necessary  to  pass  the  cliff,  which  occurs  in  the  seventy-first 
level. 

The  reasons  for  crossing  Fork  Run  in  the  nineteenth  level  have  been  already  given 
in  the  second  instance  near  the  mouth.  It  was  crossed  to  save  the  distance  to  a favor- 
able point  for  crossing  Dunlap’s  Creek  above  the  mouth  of  Fork  Run,  to  say  nothing 
of  the  ground  on  the  left  shore  of  Dunlap’s  Creek  being  decidedly  jireferable  to  that 
on  the  right  for  nearly  2 miles. 

Dunlap’s  Creek  was  then  crossed,  because  the  expense  of  crossing  Brush  Creek,  Lick 
Creek,  and  sundry  smaller  runs  which  enter  on  the  left,  would,  in  itself,  have  been 
more  than  the  expense  of  crossing  and  even  recrossing  Dunlap’s  Creek;  and,  besides, 
the  ground  on  the  right  for  more  than  5 miles  was  known  to  be  much  better  than  that 
on  the  left. 

The  canal  subsequently  crosses  Dunlap’s  Creek  four  times  in  its  progress  to  the  mouth 
of  the  creek.  The  high  and  extensive  cliffs  which  occur  on  the  right  shore  between 
the  fifth  and  seventh  miles,  it  was  thought,  entitled  the  left  shore  to  the  preference 
during  that  distance;  but  the  entrance  of  Ogley’s  Creek  just  below  the  fifth  mile,  and 
the  continuance  of  very  steep  and  rocky  ground  on  the  left,  again  renders  it  expedient 
to  gain  the  right  shore. 

The  last  two  crossings  of  the  creek  are  incurred  rather  than  wind  around  the  bend 
of  the  stream,  on  the  right  of  which  there  is  a deep  ravine,  and  very  steep  and  rocky 
ground:  and  as,  agreeably  to  your  instructions,  the  canal  was,  if  practicable,  to  follow 
nearly  the  direction  of  the  turnpike  beyond  that  bend,  one  crossing,  to  avoid  the  rocky 
ground  alluded  to,  necessitated  another  to  conform  to  your  instructions,  since  it  was 
found  practicable  and  altogether  more  expedient  to  follow  the  direction  of  the  turn- 
pike than  the  very  circuitous  course  of  the  creek.  In  evidence  of  this  fact  the  alterna- 
tive, which  is  prefer/ ed,  of  crossing  in  the  depression  through  which  the  turnf>ike  is 
located,  instead  of  following  the  valley  of  Dunlap’s  Creek,  saves  one  thousand  and 
thirty-three  yards  of  canal  along  very  unfavorable  ground;  at  the  expense,  however, 
of  the  deep  cut  in  the  sixty-second  level. 

As  to  the  termination  of  this  subdivision,  you  remark  in  your  instructions  to  me, 
“ Since  it  may  reasonably  be  expected  that,  if  ever  a canal  be  made  across  the  Alle- 
ghany Mountains  to  James  River  by  the  route  to  be  surveyed,  it  would  be  continued 
down  the  river,  or  the  navigation  of  the  river  would  be  so  far  improved  as  to  admit 
the  passage  of  boats  such  as  would  be  adap  ed  to  the  canal,  you  will,  to  i/rovide  for 
either  contingency,  so  conclude  your  survey  on  reaching  James  River  that  the  length 
and  height  of  an  aqueduct  to  reach  Covington  may  be  determined,  (as  in  the  event  of  a 
continuation  of  the  canal  it  is  through  that  town  that  the  chief  engineer  of  Virginia  has 
recommended  its  location,)  besides  so  locating  it  that  in  the  event  of  its  termination 
on  this  side,  and  the  improvement  of  the  navigation  of  the  river  by  locks  and  dams, 
the  lockage,  &c.,  may  be  drawn  to  a basin  on  such  a level  as  would  be  formed  by  the 
construction  of  a dam  of  some  moderate  elevation.” 

The  location  exhibited  by  the  profilo  of  the  canal  refers  to  the  latter  supposition,  and 
the  descent  from  the  last  level  to  the  surface  of  a basin  formed  by  a dam  8 feet  high, 
two  hundred  and  seventeen  yards  below  the  mouth  of  Dunlap’s  Creek,  is  supposed  to 
be  eftected  by  a lock  of  12  feet  lift.  The  length  of  the  dam  is  300  feet. 


782 


REPORT  OF  THE  CHIEF  OF  ENGINEERS. 


On  the  snppositioD  of  au  aqueduct  to  cross  to  the  town  of  Covington,  in  order  to 
admit  the  requisite  thickness  to  the  arches  and  be  beyond  the  reach  of  freshets, 
(which  rise  from  5 to  10  feet,)  the  seventy-first  level  should  be  continued  across  the 
river;  the  length  of  that  level  would  be  one  mile  and  eight  hundred  and  thirty-five 
yards,  iucludiug  au  aqueduct  300  feet  long  and  21  feet  high,  counting  from  the  bottom 
of  the  stream. 

The  heights  of  freshets  in  Dunlap’s  Creek  vary,  of  course,  with  the  fall  and  width  of 
the  stream,  but  they  may  be  said  to  rise  from  5 to  7 feet  at  most.  The  general  depth  of 
the  stream  is  so  trifling  that  only  the  low-w’-ater  mark  has  been  represented  on  the 
profile;  the  height  of  aqueducts,  walling,  &c.,  is,  however,  counted  from  the  bottom 
of  the  stream. 

On  reaching  the  valley  of  Dunlap’s  Creek,  those  coos’derations  obtained  which  you 
directed  in  reference  to  the  introduction  of  a supply  of  water  from  Dunlap’s  Creek 
without  “the  risk  of  inundation  from  freshets,”  the  canal  was  dropped  “so  as  to 
recpiire  but  a short  feeder  from  a suitable  site  for  a dam  of  moderate  elevation.”  The 
section  of  a dam  on  an  enlarged  scale  is  given  on  the  map  ; the  length  of  the  feeder  is 
but  610  yards. 

THIRD  SUBDIVISION. 

From  the  western  end  of  the  summit-level  to  bench-mark  on  the  Greenbrier  River. 
To  this  subdivision  there  is  a table  annexed,  to  comprehend  precisely  such  facts  as  are 
contained  in  the  table  connecteel  with  the  second  subdivision. 


APPENDIX  V. 


g O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O CO  o oooococo 
rg  rs  r"  'C'Cl'OJ'O'C'w'OJ'CJ 


-13 

’V  > 
11 


I 
S 

ocoo'^.  ‘oooooo 

S i i i :ES 


sill 


I i i a I gfi"ffl! 


«o  c:  «3  TO  o 00  CO 


4 


•S>100[ 

JO  joi^uiux; 


= 13 

ti  > 


psiSsliiSiisi  i iissSsiiSgiiig 

gooooooc.oooc.oo  o o o oo  o oooooooo 

J 


•|9Aa{ 

JO  jonuiuj^ 


Si  wv  lO  CO  t—  c 


»0  CO  I'  00  o c — 


s«?JSi5;-sssi 


783 


784 


REPORT  OF  THE  CHIEF  OF  ENGINEERS. 


The  foregoing  table,  with  the  map  and  profile,  showing  the  location,  renders  it 
unnecessary  to  dwell  long  on  this  subdivision. 

The  reasons  for  first  crossing  the  creek  when  it  had  been  determined  to  cross  the 
Greenbrier  River  from  the  right  bank  of  Howard’s  Creek  were  simply  because  the  dis- 
tance was  diminished  and  more  favorable  ground  obtained  on  the  left  side  ; and  had 
we  not  considered  these  and  remained  on  the  right  shore  our  line  would  have  been 
obliged  to  cross  the  Middle  and  North  Forks  of  Howard’s  Creek. 

In  the  ninth  and  tenth  levels  the  canal  four  times  crossed  a channel  occupied  by  a 
part  of  the  stream  in  time  of  freshets,  but  the  stream  may  easily  be  confined  to  the 
main  channel  by  a short  dike,  and  therefore  it  was  not  considered  an  objection  to  the 
location. 

We  recrossed  the  creek  in  the  tenth  level  for  similar  reasons  ; that  is,  to  shorten  the 
distance,  &c.,  because,  as  we  just  now  observed,  the  Greenbrier  was  to  be  crossed  above 
the  mouth  of  Howard’s  Creek. 

In  the  eighteenth  level  we  unavoidably  cross  the  turnpike,  and  it  may  be  as  well  to 
remark  that  the  transverse  slope  along  the  nineteenth  level,  althbugh  represented  very 
steep,  is  terminated  by  a flat  not  more  than  about  fifteen  feet  above  the  canal;  and 
the  cutting  represented  at  the  end  of  the  level  is  the  height  of  a point  of  bottom-land 
which  we  cross  because  of  the  precipitous  slope  of  the  ground  near  the  creek. 

The  walling  is  nowhere  very  considerable,  and  where  it  has  occurred  it  was  una- 
voidable. 

In  general,  it  may  be  remarked  that  the  canal  occupies  very  fiivorable  ground 
throughout  this  subdivision. 

On  arriving  at  the  bench-mark  designated  as  the  termination  of  this  subdivision, 
and  which  is  3 feet  below  the  bottom  of  the  canal  at  the  last  level,  a feeder  was  run  up 
the  river  on  the  supposition  that  an  additional  supply  of  water  might  be  required. 
This  it  was  found  can  be  accomplished  by  a feeder  1,260  yards  long  through  the  most 
favorable  cutting,  and  a dam  across  the  Greenbrier  of  108  yards  in  length  and  13  feet 
high. 

The  feeder  intended  to  introduce  a supply  from  Greenbrier  River  into  the  canal  was 
located  from  the  western  end  of  the  summit-level,  at  an  inclination  of  6 inches  per 
mile,  until  it  intersects  the  Greenbrier  River,  or,  rather,  until  a dam  5 feet  high  was 
required  to  turn  the  water  into  the  feeder.  The  length  of  the  feeder,  by  the  route  sur- 
veyed, is  31  miles  130  yards,  but  as  it  includes  a tunnel  of  5 miles  and  200  yards  through 
the  spur  of  the  Alleghany  Mountain,  which  divides  Howard’s  from  Anthony’s  Creek, 
our  reasons  for  not  surveying  the  route,  also,  around  that  spur,  as  you  directed,  will 
be  given. 

We  shall  divide  the  feeder  into  such  portions  that  the  first  and  third  will  include 
the  parts  which  would  be  common  to  both  routes;  and  the  second  portion,  including 
the  tunnel,  will  then  compare  directly  with  that  part  around  the  spur,  from  the  end  of 
the  first  to  the  beginning  of  the  third  part. 

The  first  section  pursues  a level  along  pretty  favorable  ground,  with  the  exception 
of  two  or  three  places  where  deep  cuts  for  short  distances  must  be  encountered  from 
the  summit-level  to  within  but  a short  distance  of  the  tunnel,  and  includes  4 miles 
and  396  yards. 

The  second  section  continues  on  a level  but  100  yards,  when  1,497  yards  are  occupied 
by  the  two  cuts,  which  are  supposed  to  terminate  at  3.6  feet  depth  at  either  end  of  the 
tunnel;  that  is,  the  cut  on  the  southern  side  is  1,187  yards  long,  the  tunnehS  miles  200 
yards,  and  the  northern  cut  310  yards  long;  the  remainder  of  this  section  extends  but 
740  yards  farther  to  the  aqueduct  over  Anthony’s  Creek ; making  the  length  of  the 
second  section  6 miles  747  yards. 

Now,  suppose,  instead  of  tunneling  through  this  spur  of  the  mountain,  we  follow  the 
level,  and  see  what  objections  there  are  to  this  location. 

From  the  end  of  the  first  section,  the  level  was  continued  with  the  intention  to  pur- 
sue it  until  we  should  arrive,  as  we  did  by  the  route  through  the  spur,  at  the  first 
favorable  point  for  crossing  Anthony’s  Creek  ; but  an  experiment  of  but  10  miles  over 
what  we  knew  was  a fair  specimen  of  the  remainder  induced  us  to  suppose  that,  had 
5mu  been  x>resent,  you  would  have  considered  it,  as  we  did,  useless  to  j^roceed  farther. 
The  spur  is  indented  on  both  sides  by  innumerable  ravines,  bounding  the  small  branches 
tributary  to  Howard’s  Creek  or  the  Greenbrier  River;  and,  as  a proof  of  the  great 
variation  from  anything  like  a tolerably  direct  course  necessitated  by  those  ravines, 
while,  by  the  route  of  the  feeder,  following  the  proper  level  or  inclination,  the  distance 
is  10  miles,  between  the  same  points,  by  the  road  through  the  valley,  the  distance  is 
but  5 miles. 

We  know,  by  former  surveys  of  last  year  through  the  valleys  of  Howard’s  Creek, 
the  Greenbrier  River,  and  Anthony’s  Creek,  from  the  point  where  we  terminated  our 
exx)eriment  to  the  point  at  which  we  should  be  obliged  to  ascend  Anthony’s  Cieek  to 
cross  it,  the  distance  could  not  be  hss  than  21  miles.  But  these  21  miles  pass  over 
ground  no  more  fiivorable  than  was  that  which  we  had  found  to  double  the  distance 
beyond  what,  by  the  same  standard,  without  an  actual  location,  we  should  have  consid- 


APPENDIX  V. 


785 


ered  it.  We  mi^ht,  therefore,  with  little  risk  of  map:nifyin"  the  length  of  feeder 
by  this  route,  add  at  least  one-tliird  to  the  21  miles,  and  thus  make  the  saving  of  dis- 
tance by  the  tunnel  32  miles.  This  excessive  length,  however,  wouhl  not  alone  have 
deterred  us;  but,  knowing  as  we  did  that  altjiost  throughout  these  32  miles  the  feeder 
would  pass  over  very  steep  ground,  varying  from  25^  to  45°,  we  concluded  the  losses 
of  such  a feeder,  so  situated,  would  certainly  leave  a supply  altogether  inadequate  to 
the  wants  of  the  canal ; or,  in  fact,  we  concluded  the  other  was  the  only  practicable 
route.  It  was  this  conclusion  which  determined  us  to  improve  the  means  at  our  dis- 
posal in  the  execution  of  surveys  which  it  was  known  to  bo  desirable,  if  possible,  to 
finish  before  the  close  of  the  season. 

The  third  section  includes  the  remainder  of  the  feeder.  It  begins  with  the  aqueduct 
across  Anthony’s  Creek,  which  is  40  fe-t  high  and  120  yards  long.  Different  experi- 
ments were  made  to  ascertain  the  most  favorable  place  for  crossing  this  creek  at  a less 
elevation  above  its  bed.  In  one  case,  with  an  aqueduct  of  32  feet  high  and  170  yards 
long,  it  increases  the  length  of  the  feeder  1 mile;  and  in  another,  still  higher  up,  with 
an  aqueduct  20  feet  high  and  133  yards  long,  the  distance  was  increased  to  3 miles  342 
yards.  The  si‘e  at  last  adoxJted  was  that  at  the  point  lowest  down  the  creek,  being  the 
best  that  could  be  found. 

At  487  yards  beyond  the  aqueduct  we  arrive  at  the  end  of  the  eleventh  mile  from 
the  summit-level,  and  all  that  relates  to  the  remaining  part  of  the  feeder  will  be  found 
contained  in  the  following  table: 

50  E 


Table, 


786 


REPORT  OF  THE  CHIEF  OF  ENGINEERS. 


o o o 

ftp;:; 


p p 


O ^ I 


5^ 


CO  CO  eo  00 
to  of  o'  of 

O^  rH  O'!  TO 

irTo"  o'  o'- 

CO  CO  0»  CO 


00 

co^o''i3 


OI  -ir. 

00  .1 
OI  LO  ■ 


OOOOOOOOOOOO! 


o o o o o < 


■89{i(n 

JO  aoqinn^ 


0»  CO  •<1<  lO  C£>  t-  00 


at  at  at  at 


APPENDIX  V. 


787 


A reference  to  the  foregoing  table  shows,  as  the  most  unfavorable  feature  of  that 
part  of  the  feeder  between  Anthony’s  Creek  and  its  termination,  the  steep  slope  along 
which  it  necessarily  is  located  ; nor  did  it  seem  but  that  this  didicnlty  would  be  rather 
increased  tlian  diminished  b\'  keeping  a higher  level.  Tlie  two  tunnels  which  occur  in 
the  Pith  and  17th  miles  are  particularly  recommended,  in  preference  to  the  circuitous 
course  we  should  pursue  in  following  the  level  around  those  points  through  which  we 
tunnel.  For,  omitt  ing  any  cutting  at  either  end  of  those  runnels  in  the  one  case,  while 
the  distance  through  is  but  21  yards,  the  distance  around  is  2 miles  1,000  yards,  over 
very  rocky  and  precipitous  ground  ; and,  in  the  second  ease,  the  tunnel  is  hut  100  yards, 
and  the  distance  around  1 mile  738  yards,  over  very  unfavorable  ^round.  It  will  be 
seen  that  limestone  is  but  very  seldom  crossed  by  the  teeder ; generally  speaking,  a com- 
pact sandstone  is  found  ; rock-excavation  will  occur  in  but  few  places;  loose  recks, 
however,  are  along  a great  part  of  the  line,  beneath  which  there  is  a clayey  and  grav- 
elly soil.  When  walling  is  mentioned,  it  is  suppo-ied  necessary  on  account  of  the  per- 
pe  dicular  cliffs  ; it,  however,  may  prove  better  to  blast  the  rock  in  such  places,  so  as 
to  obtain  sufficient  width  for  the  feeder  without  walling. 

The  dimensions  of  a dam  sufficiently  high  to  turn  the  wa^er  into  the  feeder  will  be 
seen  better  from  the  map  ; its  greatest  height — for  it  crosses  an  island — is 5 feet,  and  its 
length  is  120  yards,  including  30  yards  for  the  width  of  the  island.  The  position  of 
the  dam  for  the  reservoir  to  be  formed  was  chosen  28,5  yards  above  the  low  dam  just 
spoken  of,  where  the  valley  is  very  narrow  and  the  sides  composed  of  rock.  It  might 
be  raised  to  almost  any  height,  and  the  relative  lengths  of  dams  of  30,  50,  CO,  and  70 
feet  high  are  as  follows,  (referred  to  on  p.  773) : 

Dam  30  feet  high  : length  at  bottom,  70  yards ; ditto  at  top,  132  yards. 

Dam  50  feet  high  ; length  at  bottom,  70  yards ; ditto  at  top,  195  yards. 

Dam  fiO  feet  higu  ; length  at  bottom,  70  yards ; dit  o at  top,  212  yards. 

Dam  70  feet  high  ; length  at  bottom,  70  yards;  ditto  at  top,  228  yards. 

The  area  and  prism  of  each  are  given  below  : 

Dam  .30  feet  high  ; area,  023,155  square  yards  ; prism,  2,596,666  cubic  yards. 

Dam  50  feet  high  ; area,  1,278,400  square  yards ; prism,  8,578,148  cubic  yards. 

Dam  00  feet  high  ; area,  1,737,162  square  yards ; prism,  14,000,000  cubic  yards. 

Dam  70  feet  high  ; area,  2,191,046  square  yards ; [trism,  21,000,000  cubic  yards. 

The  site  of  the  dam  selected  the  first  year,  in  making  the  experimental  surveys,  was 
higher  up  the  river,  (720  feet  above  the  base-m«rk,)  but  it  would  overflow  a much 
greater  area  in  proportion  to  the  cubic  contents  of  the  reservoir. 

In  every  case,  however,  where  there  was  occasion  for  the  discretionary  exercise  of 
judgtnent  in  the  executi(>n  of  the  duties  assigned  to  Lieutenant  Fessenden  and  myself, 
the  alternative  to  the  course  adopted  by  us  was  never  rejected  without  our  concurrent 
opinion  that  its  comparative  advantages  could  not  bring  it  hereafter  in  competition. 

A report  of  the  other  objects  (the  railroad  from  Covington  to  the  Greenbrier  River, 
and  the  connection  of  the  Roanoke  and  Kanawha)  which  subsequently  occupied  the 
party  under  me  is  delayed  until  the  drawings  shall  be  more  advanced. 

I am,  sir,  very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

WirxiAM  Cook, 

Lieiilenant  United  States  Artillery^  on  Topographical  Duty. 

Capt.  Wm.  G.  McNeill, 

United  States  Topographical  Engineers,  Georgetown,  D.  C. 


Georgetown,  March  20.  1828. 

To  Capt.  W.  G.  McNeill  : 

Sir  ; By  the  arrangements  of  the  duties  of  the  field  for  the  season,  the  party  destined 
to  examine  and  locate  a line  of  canal  or  railway  from  the  mouth  of  Howard’s  Creek, 
down  the  Greenbrier  and  Kanawha  Rivers,  to  the  foot  of  the  Great  Falls  of  Kanawha, 
having  been  placed  under  my  direction.  I have  now  the  honor  of  submitting  a report 
upon  the  operations  which  occupied  me  during  the  summer. 

Early  in  the  season  the  leveling  and  survey  commenced  at  the  mouth  of  Howard’s 
Creek,  and  was  continued,  without  intermission,  down  Greenbrier  River  to  its  inter- 
section with  Kanawha  or  New  River,  and  from  th  nee  to  the  foot  of  the  Great  Falls. 

Returning  to  the  mouth  of  Greenbrier  River,  a line  of  canal  was  examined  from 
thence  to  the  mouth  of  Little  River.  This  is  regarded  as  a portion  of  the  Roanoke  and 
Kanawha  Canal. 

In  describing  the  line  as  located  down  Greenbrier  and  Kanawha  Rivers,  three  divis- 
ions are  made : 

1st.  From  the  mouth  of  Howard’s  Creek  to  the  mouth  of  Greenbrier  River. 

2d.  From  the  mouth  of  Greenbrier  River  to  Bowyer’s  Ferry,  (on  Kanawha.) 

3d.  From  Bowyer’s  Ferry  to  the  foot  of  the  Great  Falls. 


788 


REPORT  OF  THE  CHIEF  OF  ENGINEERS. 


FIRST  SUBDIVISION. 

Greenbrier  River  presents  those  characteristics  which  arc  peculiar  to  streams  havinoj 
their  i)rincipal  sources  in  the  elevated  regions  of  the  Alleghany  Mountains.  In  pursu- 
ing and  torcing  its  circuitous  passage  thiongh  the  many  ridges  of  mount.ains  that  are 
intersected,  it  is  frequently  contined  within  very  narrow  limits,  and  in  such  cases  t is 
invariably  bounded  by  steep,  ragged,  and  often  piecipitons  banks.  At  other  points 
the  liills  gradually  recede  from  the  river,  and  rich  Ha  s appear,  which  offer  every  facil- 
ity for  the  construction  of  works  < f art. 

To  obtaui  iirnutely  every  feat  ure  of  the  valley,  and  thereby  insure  a judicious  selec- 
tion of  that  side  along  which  a line  of  canal  might  be  most  advantageously  l-'cated, 
it  was  thought  expedient  to  examine  carefully  both  banks  of  the  river.  From  the 
facts  thus  a curat  ly  develo{)ed,  it  will  be  seeo  that  the  right  bank  is  decidedly  to  be 
preferred,  both  from  its  features  being  generally  more  favorable,  and  from  its  southern 
exposure. 

in  many  irstance=,  where  bluffs  are  met  with  on  one  bank,  more  favorable  ground 
might  be  found  on  the  other. 

But  as  the  river  is  remarkably  serpentine  in  its  course  and  cliffs  occur  at  every 
bend — generally  on  the  concave  tide — little  or  no  advantage  in  any  one  instance  would 
be  gained  by  cr*  ssing. 

The  first  level  of  the  first  subdivision  commences  on  the  right  bank  of  the  river  at 
the  point  (a)  on  the  map,  16  feet  above  low-water  mark. 

The  space,  350  yards,  included  be  tween  this  point  and  the  termination  on  the  left 
bank  of  the  canal-line  down  Howard’s  Creek,  is  occupied  by  two  locks,  an  aqueduct, 
and  a small  portion  of  canal. 

The  highest  freshets  on  Greenbrier  average  from  9 to  13  feet;  in  one  or  two  instances 
it  has  been  known  to  exceed  15  feet,  but  this  rarely  occurs. 

In  order  that  the  aqueduct  may  be  placed  entirely  beyond  the  reach  of  the  highest 
freshets,  and  the  quantity  of  drift-wood  and  ice  which  is  brought  down  during  the 
w’inter,  the  water-line  is  supi)osed  33  feet  above  low-water  mark.  The  length  of  the 
aqueduct  is  167  yards. 

To  descend  from  this  level  to  the  level  of  the  first  section,  two  locks  of  8^  feet  lift 
are  required. 

A supjdy  of  water  taken  from  the  Greenbrier  River  at  a suitable  point  above  may 
be  received  at  the  commencement  of  the  first  level  under  the  mest  favorable  circum- 
stances. 

in  order  to  avoid  a tedious  repetition  of  the  same  facts,  which  continually  recur,  a 
table  is  attached,  exhibiting  the  length  of  each  level,  the  number  of  culverts  required, 
the  extent  and  h--ight  of  walls,  and  the  general  character  of  the  ground. 

As  far  as  it  has  been  piacticable,  the  line  of  canal  has  been  locat'-d  at  the  foot  of  the 
hill-Gope,  about  15  feet  above  the  surface  of  the  water.  This  position  is  recommended 
by  the  greater  uniformity  which  it  offers  m excavation  atd  the  greater  facility  with 
which  any  given  level  may  be  retained. 

From  the  first  to  the  end  of  the  fifth  level  no  material  difficulty  is  met  with.  The 
line  is  traced  alternately  through  flats,  generally  narrow,  but  wifle  enough  for  all  prac- 
tical purposes,  and  along  the  river-bank,  often  rocky  and  steep.  The  streams  which 
are  crossed  are  generally  small  mountain-drains,  which  yield  during  the  summer 
months  little  or  no  water.  The  quantity,  however,  of  stone  and  gravel  which  is 
brought  down  by  the  current  after  heavy  rains  renders  it  advisable,  in  most  cases,  to 
pass  them  under  the  canal  through  small  culverts. 

At  the  beginn'Dg  of  the  sixth  level  the  line  intersects  rugged  cliffs  of  limestone,  to 
sustain  the  level  of  the  canal,  along  wdiich  a wall  863  yards  in  length  and  20  feet  high 
is  required.  Its  construction  is  facilitated  by  the  suitalleness  of  the  stone  on  the  sjtot 
and  the  ease  with  which  its  base  may  be  placed  below  low-water  mark.  The  water 
along  the  right  bank,  though  rapid,  is  generally  shallow.  From  i hence  to  the  end  of 
the  seventh  level  the  ground  is  quite  favorable. 

In  the  eighth  level  perpendicular  clifft  of  limestone  again  occur.  The  water  at  the 
base  of  these  cliffs  is  deep  and  rapid.  Near  the  end  of  this  level  the  line  crosses  Mill 
Creek  by  means  of  an  aqueduct  IdO  feet  in  length  and  17  feet  above  the  water.  This 
stream  is  remarkable  from  the  singular  fact  of  its  disappearing  entirely  9 or  10  miles 
from  its  mouth,  and,  after  flowing  in  a subterraneous  channel  through  this  distance,  it 
suddenly  gushes  up  in  a ravine  at  the  foot  of  high  perpendicular  cliff-,  and  soon  after 
puts  in  operation  a mill,  which  is  kept  in  motion  by  it  throughout  the  driest  seasons. 

A short  dist  trice  below  the  mouth  of  Mill  Creek  this  level  is  again  embarrassed  by 
cliffs  of  limestone,  requiring  a wall.  Opposite  this  point  a long  rapid  commences,  and 
a suitable  point  may  he  found  for  a dam  ; one  s or  9 feet  high,  and  a feeder  946  yards 
in  length,  would  furni.-h  a fresh  supplj^  of  water  at  the  commencement  of  the  tenth 
level.  Early  in  this  level  vertical  cliffs  of  limestone  are  met  with,  which  will  require 
a strong  wall,  having  its  base  generally  beneath  low-rvater  mark  ; water  along  the 
base  deep  and  rax>id. 


APPENDIX  V. 


789 


From  thence  for  some  distance  the  j^round  is  favmrahle.  Toward  tlie  end  of  tlio 
level  tlie  line  intersects  Muddy  Creek  Mountain,  alon^  the  declivity  of  which  the  canal 
necessarily  occupies  very  unfavorable  f^round.  The  general  slo|)e  averages  18°,  and  is 
covered  for  the  most  part  with  fragments  of  sandstone  and  conglomerate  rocks. 

About  the  beginning  of  the  fourteenth  level  tlie  mountain  recedes  from  the  river, 
and  the  lino  occupies  a very  favorable  flat  until  it  inteisect'*  Muddy  Creek.  This  creek 
is  crossed  by  a small  aqueduct  50  feid.  in  length  and  19  feet  above  the  water. 

The  quantity  of  water  which  Muddy  Creek  yields  during  the  summer  months  is 
quite  small.  Should  its  supply,  however,  ever  be  required,  it  might  easily  be  thrown 
into  the  canal  by  a moderate  dam  and  a short  feeder. 

From  hence,  through  the  sixteenth,  imrt  of  the  seventeenth,  eighteenth,  and  part  of 
the  nine  eenth  level  the  line  is  traced  along  a hill-sloiie,  frecpieutly  steep  and  rocky. 
Several  culverts  are  required  and  some  walling,  tlie  extent  of  which  is  shown  in  the 
table.  I'hrough  the  remainder  of  the  niueteeth  level  the  nature  of  the  soil  admits  of 
easy  excavation. 

Through  the  twentieth  and  part  of  the  twenty-first  level  the  line  occupies  a very 
unfavorable  position  along  a steeji  and  rocky  hill-slope.  From  B.  M.  No.  20  to  the  end 
of  the  last  level,  with  the  exception  of  a straight  wall  along  cliffs  of  red  sandstone, 
the  ground  is  generally  quite  favorable. 

In  the  twenty-second  level,  Hunger’s  Creek  is  crossed  by  an  aqueduct  50  feet  in 
length  and  17..5  feet  in  height,  with  an  embankment  at  either  extreniitv  of  50  feet. 
This  stream  discharges  a quantity  of  water  in  wet  seasons,  but  during  the  summer 
months  it  nearly  goes  dry.  The  deep  cutting  along  thi.s  level  is  very  considerable, 
owing  to  the  general  steepness  of  the  hill-slope  along  which  it  is  located.  Toward 
the  end  of  this  level  the  river  suddenly  turns  from  a southeasterly  to  a northwesterly 
direction,  forming  thereby  Strieker’s  Neck.-  On  the  east  side  of  this  bend,  cliffs  of 
compact  sandstone  rise  vertically  from  the  water.  This  point  presents  a greater 
obstacle  thau  qe  have  yet  encountered.  The  most  unfavorable  portion  extends  266 
yards;  in  this  distance  the  river  descends  10  feet,  and  the  whole  courseof  an  impetuous 
current  is  concentrated  at  this  point.  The  base  of  the  wall  required  here  must  una- 
voidably be  placed  beueathed  low-water  mark,  in  deep  and  rapid  water,  and  should  be 
formed  of  the  strougest  materials,  to  resist  the  powerful  pressure  to  which  it  will  be 
exposed  during  a fresln-t. 

No  opportunity  is  offei’ed  of  avoiding  this  difficulty  by  crossing  the  river,  as  cliffs  of 
an  equally  unfavorable  nature  present  themselves  on  the  left  bank. 

Thepr  file  is  the  development  of  the  linearouml  this  point.  The  distance,  however, 
may  be  lessened  more  than  half  a mile,  and  th  s obstacle  avoided,  by  tunneling  136 
yards  through  this  neck,  or  by  a deep  cut  76  feet.  The  point  alluded  to  is  contained 
between  the  letters  x and  y on  the  map  and  profile. 

Through  the  next  five  and  part  of  the  sixth  levels  the  canal  must  also  be  supported 
in  a great  measure  by  a strong  wall,  having  its  base  frequently  beneath  low-water 
mark. 

From  the  middle  of  the  twenty-eighth  to  the  thirty-fifth  level  the  ground  is  gener- 
ally favoiable,  with  the  exception  of  one  or  two  points,  at  which  the  hill-.'-lope  be- 
comes steep  and  rocky.  In  this  distance  numerous  small  streams  are  crossed,  which 
will  require,  for  the  reasons  given  above,  small  culverts. 

About  the  middle  of  the  thirty-fifth  level  rugged  cliff's  of  sandstone  are  encountered. 
The  river  fere  is  wide  and  shallow,  with  little  fall.  About  the  beginning  of  the  thirty- 
sixth  level,  the  line  gradually  curves  along  the  base  of  the  hill,  and  finally  gains  the 
wide  valley  of  Kanawha  River.  The  first  suhdi vision  is  supposed  to  end  at  B.  M.  No. 
28,  near  the  commencement  of  the  thirty-sixth  level,  and  opposite  the  mouth  of  Green- 
brier River. 

Length  of  the  first  division,  48  miles  1,561  yards  ; fall  in  the  river,  287.52  feet. 

SECOND  SUI3DIVISION. 

The  valley  of  Kanawha  River  presents,  in  a great  measure,  the  same  characteristics 
as  that  of  Greenbrier  River.  Piobably  tliere  is  not  another  stream  in  the  country,  of 
equal  size, which  furnishes  less  bottom-land  along  i s banks,  and  which  receives  so 
few  tributary  streams  of  any  size.  The  flats  which  are  found  are  generally  so  narrow 
and  occur  so  seldom  that  the  valley  is,  comparatively,  a perfect  wilderness.  The  nu- 
merous rapids  and  falls,  which  are  met  in  nearly  every  mile,  form  a striking  feature  of 
this  river.  The  bed  of  the  stream  beii  g very  wide,  and  the  water  allowed  in  most 
cases  to  flow  off’  freely,  the  freshets  seldom  exceed  13  feet. 

Although  the  soil  of  the  flats  is  generally  light  and  sandy,  the  hill-slopes  are  usually 
covered  with  a thick  growth  of  fine  timber,  such  as  the  poplar,  the  beech,  maple,  white 
and  red  oak,  and  some  pine  trees. 

The  numbers  of  the  levels  are  supposed  to  continue  from  the  commencement  of  the 
first  division. 

From  the  commencement,  then,  of  this  division  to  the  end  of  the  thirty-seventh 
level  the  line  passes  through  a sandy  flat,  offering  but  little  impediment.  Through 


790 


REPORT  OF  THE  CHIEF  OF  ENGINEERS. 


the  next  two  levels,  the  declivity  of  the  hill  being  steep  and  rocky,  some  emba^  kinents 
and  walling  are  required.  The  extent  and  height  of  each  is  exhibited  in  the  table. 

Opposite  The  last  level  the  stream  descend--,  in  a few  yards,  13  feet,  forming  what  is 
called  “Tug  Falls.”  The  river  at  the  head  of  this  fall  is  rather  wide;  in  every  other 
respect  it  presents  a veiy  favorabl-i  site  for  a dam.  From  hence,  throngn  the  next  tive 
levels,  the  line  meets  with  no  obitmctions.  In  the  forty-second  level  Brooks’s  Falls  is 
passed.  The  river  is  here  29s  yards  in  width,  and  descends  9 feet  over  a ledge  of  rocks 
extending  Jrom  bank  to  bank.  This  is  a more  favorable  point  for  furnishing  the  canal 
with  a new  supply  of  water  than  the  one  notic-d  above.  A dam  8 or  9 feer  high,  and 
a feeder  less  than  half  a m le  in  If-ngth,  would  effect  this  object.  In  the  forty-fitth  level 
the  line  intersects  the  cliffs  just  above  Richmond’s  Falls.  Tnis  fall  is  a very  pronruenC 
fearnre  of  the  river,  and  the  obstacles  here,  on  the  ri>ht  bank,  are  of  the  most  serious 
nature.  The  river  descends  perpendicularly  over  a ledge  of  rocks  23  feet  high,  and  is 
bounded  on  either  side  by  high  vertical  cliff’s  of  compact  sandstone.  On  the  right  bank 
the  cliff’s  commence  some  yards  above  the  falls,  and  extend  thiongh  the  forty-sixth 
and  part  of  the  forty-seventh  level ; in  all  which  distance  the  bed  of  the  canal  must 
necessar  ly  be  upheld  by  a high  and  strong  wall. 

On  the  left  bank  the  same  rude  cliff’s  extend  for  some  distance  above.  Immediatelj’^, 
however,  at  the  fails  a small  flat  occurs,  which  offers  greater  facilities  for  the  construc- 
tion of  locks,  &c.  At  the  termination  of  this  flat  the  bluffs  again  present  their  hideous 
front,  and  the  left  bank  then  becomes  as  unfavorable  as  the  opposite  one.  Hence,  the 
idea  of  crossing  the  river  to  avoid  the  great  difficulty  immediately  at  the  falls  is  pre- 
cluded by  the  simple  fact  that  the  obstacles  on  the  left  bank,  both  above  and  below, 
are  equally  great.  Through  the  remainder  of  the  forty-seventh  level  the  line  occupies 
a narrow,  sandy  flat.  Ftir  the  next  mile  and  a half,  in  the  forty-eighth  level,  the  hill- 
slope  is  steep  and  rocky  ; this  is  again  succeeded  by  a favorable  flat,  which  continues 
to  the  end.  In  crossing  the  valley  of  Meadow  River,  the  embankment  is  greatly  in- 
creased, owing  to  the  necessity  of  retaining  the  level  high  enough  to  place  the  canal 
above  the  reach  of  the  high  freshets  to  which  this  small  stream  is  subjected,  as  indi- 
cated by  the  quantity  of  crift-wood  collected  on  the  flat  at  its  mouth.  Aqueduct,  33 
j-ards  ill  length  and  14  feet  high.  Through  the  next  nine  levels  the  canal  is  generally 
located  along  sloping  ground,  varying  from  two  to  twenty-throe  degrees.  In  two  in- 
stances some  embankment  and  walling  are  required. 

In  the  fifty-ninth  level  l.aurel  Creek  is  passed.  About  a quarter  of  a mile  above  the 
mouth  this  creek  forks,  and  discharges  its  water  into  the  Kanawha  through  three  dif- 
ferent channels.  A small  dam  at  the  forks  would  throw  the  water  into  one  channel 
and  save  the  expense  ot  two  culverts.  This  level,  after  passing  through  a sandy  flat, 
encounters  a very  rugged  hill-slope,  along  which  a strong  wall  must  be  constructed. 
Owing  to  the  sudden  bend  wnich  the  river  here  makes,  the  right  bank  is  exposed  to 
the  full  force,  during  high  tides,  of  an  impetuous  current.  Through  the  remainder  of 
this  level  and  the  next  the  ground  is  more  favorable,  sloping  from  one  to  10°.  From 
hence  to  the  end  of  the  seventy-first  level  the  canal  is  locatetl,  for  the  most  part,  along 
a steep  and  rocky  hill-slope.  The  degrees  of  declivity,  given  in  the  profile,  along  each 
level  will  show  in  each  case  the  extent  of  deep  cutting.  The  table  will  also  exhibit 
the  length  and  height  of  each  portion  of  walling.  Opposite  the  end  of  the  sixty-lifth 
level  the  river  descends  11  feet  in  a few  yards,  and  a favorable  site  may  be  found  fora 
dam.  To  receive  this  fresh  supply  of  water,  the  level  of  the  canal  is  lowered  by  two 
locks,  with  a basin  intervening,  of  171  yards.  Owing  to  the  bed  of  the  stream  being 
here  very  much  contracted,  the  height  of  freshets  is  unusually  great.  The  wall, there- 
fore, required  to  sujiport  the  bed  of  the  canal  along  this  portion  of  the  line  must  beat 
least  27  feet  high,  and  calculated  to  resist  the  pressure  of  the  immense  body  of  water 
which  rushes  by  during  high  tides. 

From  the  seventy-second  level  to  Bowyer’s  Ferry  the  ground  is  generally  unfavor- 
able. In  a few  instances  the  line  passes  through  narrow  flats,  but  generally  along  the 
hill-slope,  which  is  frequently  steep  and  rocky.  Near  the  beginning  of  the  eighry- 
fourth  level  a suitable  site  occurs  for  the  erection  of  a dam.  A fresh  supply  of  water 
is  thought  of  thus  early,  from  the  circumstances  that  no  convenient  site  for  a dam  is 
found  between  this  point  and  the  end  of  the  line ; and  the  canal  could  not  be  lowered 
below  this  without  materially  jeopardizing  its  safety.  The  second  subdivision  is  sup- 
posed to  end  at  Bowyer’s  Ferry. 

Length  of  this  division,  45  miles  901  yards.  Total  fall  in  the  river,  399.415  feet. 

THIRD  SUBDIVISION. 

From  Bowyer’s  Ferry  to  within  2 miles  of  the  Great  Falls  the  valley  of  Kanawha 
presents  a novel  and  frightful  appearance,  and  the  obstacles  that  are  met  with  are 
decidedly  more  formidable  than  any  that  have  even  yet  been  encountered  and  over- 
come The  river  here  breaks  through  Sewell  Mountain,  and  is  confined  throughout 
within  narrow  limits,  bounded  Iiy  rugged  banks  and  jirecipitous  cliffs,  rising  many 
hundred  feet  above  the  surface  of  the  water. 

Immense  masses  of  rocks,  which  have  been  ejected  from  the  cliffs  near  the  brow  of 


APPENDIX  V. 


791 


the  mountain,  cover  the  lower  slope  on  both  sides  of  the  valley,  giving  to  the  whole 
a most  appalling?  appearance.  In  many  instances  these  hn^e  fragments  have  been 
precipitated  entirely  across  the  bed  of  the  stream.  In  such  ])Iace8  the  river  when 
agitated  and  swollen  by  heavy  rains — the  cnrrent  being  obstructed  in  its  course — fre- 
quently rises  from  35  to  50  feet  above  its  usual  height. 

Numerous  rapids-and  falls  occur,  over  which  the  water  rushes  with  deafening  impet- 
uosity. 

From  this  faint  account  of  the  general  character  of  this  portion  of  the  route,  it  will 
immediately  be  seen  that  the  bi-d  of  a canal  must  unavoidably  be  supported  tf.rough- 
out  the  whole  distance  by  a high  wall,  capable  of  resisting  the  immense  pressure  to 
which  it  must  necessarily  be  exposed  from  the  impinging  of  this  furious  current. 

There  is  generally  sufficient  space  (with  the  exception  of  threeor  four  points  noticed 
in  the  profiles,  when  the  cliffs  i ise  vertically  from  the  surface  of  the  stream)  between 
low-water  mark  and  the  blufis  for  the  construction  of  such  a wall.  This  space,  how- 
ever, is  usually  occupied  by  the  immense  masses  of  rocks  alluded  to  above. 

In  all  this  distance  there  is  but  one  small  flat;  hence,  the  want  of  materials  on  the 
spot  for  puddling  the  bottom  and  sides  of  the  canal  will  be  very  seriously  feP.. 

In  making  the  survey  every  feature  of  the  valley  was  so  carefully  observed  that,  in 
case  a canal  along  this  portion  of  the  route  should  be  thought  inexpedient,  from  the 
unusnally  great  expense  which  would  attend  its  construction,  a railroad  might  be  sub- 
stituted a ong  the  same  line,  with  such  alterations  as  might  be  suggested  by  the  data 
now  in  our  possession.  This,  however,  must  hereafter  form  the  subject  of  a separate 
report. 

About  half  a mile  above  the  month  of  Gauley  River  the  line  gains  a narrow  flat, 
along  which  it  continues  until  it  crosses  the  river  by  an  aqueduct  23  feet  above  the 
surface  of  the  stream  and  213  yards  in  length. 

From  hence  to  the  Great  Falls  of  Kanawh  i the  line  o'^cupies  a favorable  flat. 

To  descend  from  the  level  of  the  last  s ctiou  to  the  surface  of  the  water  at  the  foot 
of  the  Great  Falls  four  locks  ot  9.8  feet  lift  are  required. 

A ledge  of  rocks,  extending  diag.  nally  across  the  river  and  over  which  the  stream 
descends  perpendicularly  21  feet,  forms  what  is  known  as  the  Great  Falls  of  Kanawha. 
The  main  body  of  water  passes  through  a sluice  about  100  yards  in  width  near  the  left 
bank.  The  remainder  of  theled^e  is  only  covered  at  high  tide. 

Just  below  the  falls  there  is  a most  beautiful  natural  harbor,  the  river  being  here 
650  yards  in  width  and  10  to  15  feet  deep  within  a few  yards  of  the  shore. 

Length  of  third  division,  21  miles  1,638  yards ; total  fall  in  the  river,  340.325  feet. 

In  conclusion,  it  may  be  proper  to  remark  that  hereafter,  on  making  a more  minute 
and  protracted  examination  of  the  ground  preparatory  to  a permanent  location,  many 
alterations  may  be  suggested  in  the  position  of  the  line  of  canal  and  its  appurte- 
nances. But  it  is  believed  that  no  material  difference  in  the  total  expense  of  the  work 
will  result  from  such  partial  deviation. 

All  which  is  respectfully  submitted. 

R.  A.  Hazzard, 
Lieutenant,  United  States  Army. 


1 Number  of  levels.  j 

Length  of 
each  level. 

Number  of  locks  to  the 
beginning  of  each  level. 

Number  of  aqueducts  in 
each  level. 

Number  of  culverts  in 
each  level. 

Walling. 

Nature  of  excavation. 

Yards. 

Length. 

Height. 

Soil. 

Hocks. 

Feet. 

Feet. 

1 

0 

1,  466 

1 

Clay 

Sandstone. 

2 

2 

3 

3 

Sandy  

3 

2 

1, 193 

4 

2 

Clay  and  sand 

4 

2 

i^OO 

5 

5 

5 

1 

1,  500 

6 

2 

Clay 

6 

1 

1,  246 

7 

863 

20 

Limestone  and  conglomerate  rock. 

7 

1 

170 

8 

1 

Alluvial 

8 

1 

1,  350 

9 

1 

1 

255 

23 

Clay 

Limestone.  (A  small  aqueduct 

across  Mill  Creek.  100  feet  ia 

length  and  17  feet  high.) 

9 

0 

763 

10 

Gravelly 

10 

2 

241 

11 

1 

666 

18.  5 

Stony 

Sandstone. 

11 

1 

340 

12 

1 

228 

10 

12 

0 

1,  438 

13 

1 

13 

0 

1,233 

14 

Alluvial 

14 

1 

1,  366 

15 

1 

Clay 

Valley  of  this  small  8‘ream  is  60 

feet  in  width  and  13  feet  in  depth. 

7( 

oS 

"3 

,2 

Vi 

o 

u 

a> 

,0 

a 

D 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

48 

49 

50 

51 

52 

53 

54 

55 

56 

57 

58 

59 

60 

61 

62 

63 

64 

65 

66 

67 

68 

69 

70 

71 

72 

73 

74 

75 

76 

77 

78 

79 

80 

81 

82 

83 


Number  of  aqueducts 

iu  each  level. 


OF  THE  CHIEF  OF  ENGINEERS. 


aj  . 

5.2 

Vi  _ 

SI 

2 

a 

s 


■Wallin  er. 


Feet. 


756 


810 


728 

408 

776 

491 

1,077 

1,286 

850 

833 


1,266 


528 

'566 


291 
1,  347 


300 

476 


925 


1,213 

‘"756’ 


1,  383 
"821' 


475 


Feet. 


17.5 


22 


23 


17.5 

20 


17.5 


25 


Soil. 


Alluvial 
Ciay 


Alluvial  . 
Gravelly. 


Clay 

Gravelly. 


Clay 


Sandy  . . . 


Sandy  . . 
Alluvial 
Sandy  . . 


Clay  . 
Sand. 


Clay . . 
Sandy 


Clay , 


Clay 


Sandy 

Sandy 


Clay 


Nature  of  excavation. 


Rocks. 


Aqueduct  across  Muddy  Creek, 
50  feet  in  length  and  19  feet 
above  surface  of  the  water. 


Slatestone.  Embankment 50 yards 
in  length  and  15  feet  high. 
Limestone. 


Hard  sandstone. 


Hard  sandstone. 


Rocky. 


Sandstone. 


Sandstone. 

Sandstone. 


Compact  sandstone.  (Two  con- 
tiguous locks  are  required  at 
Richmond’s  Falls ) 

Compact  sandstone. 

Conglomerate  rock. 


Hill  slope,  very  steep  and  rocky. 
Sandstone. 


Stony. 


Rocky. 


Sandstone. 

Red  sandstoneand  limestone  cliffs 


Sandstone  cliffs. 

Rocky. 

Along  a very  steep  hill-slope. 


Clay 


Rocky. 


APPENDIX  V. 


793 


From  hence  there  are  in  all  42  levels  and  46  locks  to  the  surface  of  the  water  in  the 
basin  below  thn  Great  Falls;  but  the  length  of  each  level  below  Bowyer’s  Ferry,  with 
such  other  details  as  are  iucladed  in  the  tables,  are  reserved  until  the  drawings  shall 
be  more  advanced,  on  which  every  featii  e of  the  section  will  be  fully  exhibited.  The 
precise  termination  of  each  level,  with  the  most  suitable  position  for  the  locks,  in- 
volves considerations  which  are  not  at  this  time  fully  niatuied. 


Georgetown,  D.  C., 
Topo(jra])Mcal  Office,  March  14,  1828. 

To  Capt.  Wm.  G.  McNeill: 

Sir  : I have  the  honor  to  submit  the  following  table,  exhibiting  the  discharge  of  the 
sevoiat  81  reams  which  may  be  U8ed  for  the  supp  y of  the  proposed  Roanoke  and  Kan- 
awha Canal,  from  the  mouth  of  Little  River  to  the  forks  of  the  Roanoke,  together  with 
some  few  remarks  upon  those  streams  and  the  more  important  mineral  localities  ob- 
served in  the  vicinity: 

Table  of  measurements. 


Name  of  stream. 

Date  of  meas- 
urement. 

Quantity  in 
cubic  feet 
discharged 
per  second. 

Remarks. 

1827. 

South  Fork  of  Elliot’s  Creek,  at  the  forks 

August  7 

5.  48 

Do 

20 

9.  00 

Slight  fresh. 

Do 

2-2 

5.  08 

Do  

October  12 

5.  45 

North  Fork  of  Elliot’s  Creek,  at  the  forks 

August  7 

3.  80 

Do 

20 

8.  00 

Slight  fresh. 

Do 

22 

4.  60 

Do  

October  12 

4.  03 

E’liot’s  Creek,  monlh 

22 

12.  02 

South  Fork  of  Roauoke,  above  Elliot’s  Creek 

22 

28.  00 

About  the  minimum. 

Meadow  Creek,  near  Hay’s 

September  21 

6 44 

About  the  minimum. 

Little  River,  near  the  mouth  of  Meadow  Creek... 

17 

231.  04 

Little  River,  3 miles  below  Thompson’s  

G 

161.  70 

Slight  fresh. 

Little  River,  at  the  commencement  of  feeder  to 

the  summit-level 

19 

118.00 

Do 

October  4 

97.  00 

Do 

14 

111.05 

The  number  of  mills  upon  th<=se  streams  renders  complete  accuracy  unattainable. 

The  measurements  were  made  under  the  most  favorable  circuni'tances  for  Laming 
the  miuitnum  supply  of  the  strea  os;  for  not  only  the  quantity  of  rain  which  fell  dur- 
ing the  season  was  unusually  stnall,  but  the  intervals  of  its  falling  were  so  great  as  to 
give  ns  an  opportunity  of  ob-erviug  the  strength  of  the  spr  ngs. 

Little  River,  I iiuifurmly  learned  from  tho^e  who  resid  d on  its  banks,  had  never 
been  low'er  than  during  this  season,  so  that  its  minimum  supply  may,  with  common 
certainty,  be  assumed  at  what  it  is  represented  in  the  table. 

In  comparison  with  otherstreams  in  the  vicinity  ^tfording  the  same  quantity  of  water, 
Little  Rivt-r  is  very  much  the  shortest,  and  by  far  the  greater  proportion  of  the  supply 
is  obtained  from  springs  which  have  their  rise  wirhiu  a few  hundred  yards  of  the  river, 
a distance  general  y cleared  along  the  whole  of  its  length.  No  usual  occurrence,  there- 
fore, can  tend  to  lessen  its  supply  materially  ; but  should  any  circumstances  whatever 
produce  this  effect,  we  may  have  resort  to  a reservo  r,  for  whi-  h the  valley  of  the  river 
is  well  adapted;  and  a reservoir  may  also  be  formed  in  the  valley  of  the  South  Fork  of 
Elliot’s  Creek,  near  the  fork,  for  a supply  at  that  point. 

The  count' y is  generally  what  is  termed  a limestone  country,  except  about  the  upper 
part  of  Litile  River,  where  we  have  sa'  dstoue. 

Compact  limestone  is  the  most  abuudaun  mineral  production  , but  as  to  its  presence 
united  with  the  oxide  of  manganese,  a union  suitable  for  water-lime,  I had  not  the 
means  of  ascertaining. 

A fine  locality  of  bubrstone  was  observed  on  the  South  Fork  of  Elliot’s  Creek,  12 
miles  f om  the  Roanoke,  containing  a great  proporti'on  of  silex,  and  very  porous. 

Iron  ore  was  nonced  on  Little  River,  ferruginous  red  oxide  of  copper  on  Elliot’s 
Creek,  and  galena  or  sulphuret  of  lead  on  New  River. 

I am,  sir,  very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

John  M.  Fessenden, 

Second  Lieutenant  Fourth  Artillery,  on  topographical  duty. 


794 


REPORT  OF  THE  CHIEF  OF  ENGINEERS. 


Topographical  Office, 

Georgetown,  JJ.  C.,  February,  1828. 

To  Capt.  William  G.  McNeill, 

United  jStales  Topographical  Engineer : 

Sir;  Agreeably  to  your  instructious,  I have  the  honor  to  report  upon  the  duties  as- 
signed to  me  while  employed  upon  the  surveys  and  examinations  relating  to  a pro- 
posed route  for  a canal  between  the  headwaters  of  the  Kanawha  and  James  Rivers,  in 
the  State  of  Virginia. 

During  the  months  of  August  and  September,  1826,  and  the  months  of  May  and 
June,  1827,  I ascertained,  by  frequent  measurements  of  t he  streams  on  each  side  of  the 
dividing-ridge,  the  quantity  of  water  to  be  relied  upon  for  the  supply  of  the  summit- 
level,  together  with  ihe  portions  of  canal  between  the  extremities  of  the  summit-level 
and  .Jackson’^s  and  Greenbrier  Rivers. 

In  the  mean  time  I also  made  an  examination  as  to  the  supply  of  water  for  a canal 
to  connect  the  headwaters  of  Craig’s  Creek,  a tributary  to  Jackson’s  River,  with  Sink- 
ing Creek,  a branch  of  the  Kanawha. 

During  the  latter  pait  of  the  season  of  1827  I reconnoitered  the  country  in  the  vi- 
cinity of  Huntersville,  Pocahontas  County,  to  ascertain  whether  or  not  a connection 
could  be  formed  there  between  Jackson’s  and  Greenbrier  Rivers. 

While  in  the  performance  of  these  duties,  agreeably  to  instructions  received  from 
you,  I made  fiequent  observations  relative  to  the  formation  of  the  country  which  I 
traversed.  I shall  give  the  result  of  my  observations  in  the  order  in  which  they  were 
made;  showing,  in  the  first  place,  that  there  is  a sufficient  supply  of  wmter  for  a canal 
on  the  route  from  the  mouth  of  Dunlap’s  Creek,  at  Covington,  to  the  mouth  of  How- 
ard’s Creek. 

The  following  tables  contain  the  quantity  of  w'ater  discharged  by  the  several  streams 
to  be  relied  uxion  for  the  supply  of  a canal  on  the  dilferent  routes  examined: 

Table  I. — Exhibiting  ihe  quantity  of  water  obtained  by  the  measurement  of  streams  on  the 

proposed  route  for  the  James  River  and  Kanawha  Canal,  in  Virginia,  during  the  months  of 

August  and  September,  1826. 


Name  of  stream  measured. 


When 

measured. 


Where  measured. 


Quantity  of 
water  per 
second  in 
cub.  feet. 


Jackson  River... 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Do  

Dunlap’s  Creek  .. 

Do 

Do  

Do  

Do 

Do 

Do 

Snake  Run  

Aufile.v’s  Creek  . . 

Potts’s  Creek 

Do 

Do  

Craig’s  Creek 

Do 

John’s  Creek 

Do 

Do  

Sinking  Creek  .. 
Do 

Greenbrier  River 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Do  

Howard’s  Creek  . 
Do 


Aug.  7 

At  Pitcher’s  mill,  near  Covington 

7 

Above  the  mouth  of  Dunlap’s  Creek 

24 

Above  Pitcher’s  mill  

Sept.  6 

Above  ihe  mouth  of  Potts’s  Creek 

4 

Below  the  m uth  of  Dunlap’s  Creek 

Aug.  7 

Below  the  mouth  of  Augle^’s  Creek 

7 

At  its  mouth  

9 

Above  the  mouth  of  Snake  Run 

16 

At  its  mouth 

17 

.do 

24 

do 

Sept.  27 

do 

Aug.  9 

do 

7 

7 

do  

16 

do 

Sept.  4 

do  

Aug.  25 

Below  the  mouth  of  Roaring  Run 

Sept.  1 

Below  the  mouth  of  John’s  Creek .. 

1 

At  its  mouth 

1 

do 

1 

. ...  do  

1 

Below  Johnson’s  mill  

1 

At  Johnson’s  mill,  when  there  is  a maximum 

head  of  water  at  the  mill 

Aug.  10 

Above  the  mouth  of  Howard’s  Creek 

20 

do 

20 

At  Bright’s  mill  

21 

One  mile  above  Bright’s. 

25 

Above  Howard’s  Creek 

Sept.  5 

Below  Howard’s  Creek 

6 

Six  miles  below  Anthony's  Creek 

7 

At  Bowen’s  mill  

7 

Below  Bowen’s  mill  

7 

Above  McClure's  mill 

7 

At  McClute’s  mill 

8 

Above  Laurel  Run 

8 

Above  Stamping  Creek 

25 

Below  Howard’s  Creek 

Aug.  10 

Below  the  White  Sulphur  Springs 

19 

do 

130.5 

157.2 
1.52.  05 
156.8 

246.3 
22.6 

2.5.6 
19.  03 

9.  43 
10.  26 

24.0 
22.  0 

5.5 
1. 12 

65.3 
34.9 

39.6 

157.7 

39.3 
15.  4 

16.3 
15.  85 

0.  49 
6.  40 

230.7 

134.7 

69.  44 

70.  00 
148.  6 

97.0 
46.  72 

46.7 
129.0 

73.3 

67.6 

49.0 
42.  3 

142.  6 

11.6 
7.8 


APPENDIX  V. 


795 


Table  I. — Exhibiting  the  quantity  of  water  obtained,  ^c. 


Name  of  stream  measured. 

When 

measured. 

Where  measured. 

Quantity  of 
water  per 
second  in 
cub.  feet. 

Howcir^l.^9  ... 

Aug.  25 
Sept.  5 

5 

A tits  month  

6.  83 

Do  

do 

12.  9 

Do  

do  

10.  9 

{) 

do. 

14.  3 

Do  

Aug.  21 

Six  miles  above  its  mouth 

11.  5 

Spring  Creek 

nT'APir  . . . 

Sept.  7 

8 

Near  it-*  junction  with  Greenbrier  Kiver 

Near  its  mouth  

9.6 

0.  66 

Do  

8 

At  a mill  near  its  mouth 

0.  704 

Sf.jimpi HIT  rirop.k  

9 

Near  its  mouth 

5.  00 



9 

do  

2.  5 

Knapp’s  Creek 

14 

Six  miles  above  its  mouth 

41.  0 

^pfuiTifi  . . 

Aug.  29 
29 

Below  Patton’s  mill 

33.  3 

Do  

At  Knox’s  Ford 

28.  29 

Do  

29 

Near  the  Gap  Mill 

30.  09 

Table  II.^ — Showing  the  quantity  of  water  found  in  the  streams  on  the  proposed  route  for  the 
James  River  and  Kanawha  Canal,  in  Virginia,  during  the  mouths  of  May  and  June,  1827. 


Marne  of  stream  measured. 

When 

measured. 

Where  measured. 

Quantity  of 
water  per 
.second  in 
cub.  feet. 

Jackson’s  Kiver 

May  4 

Below  the  mouth  of  Dunlap’s  Creek 

3.50.  00 

Do  

18 

56"*.  78 

Do  

' 19 

do - ..  

607.  00 

Do  

25 

do 

1,  800.  00 
600.  (-0 

)o 

June  5 
16 

May  9 
10 

do - 

Do  

do  ...  

419.  70 

Green bi  ier  Kiver 

Below  mouth  of  Howard’s  Creek 

1,768.  00 
1,  995.  00 
1,  970.  60 
4,  000.  00 

Do  

do.  . - 

Do 

16 

do 

Do  

12 

do  - - 

Do  

22 

do 

6,  650.  00 
2,  000  00 
1,  500.  00 
1,  224.  00 

Do 

24 

do 

Do 

25 

do 

Do 

27 

A t Bowen’.s  mill  ... 

Do 

27 

At  McClure’s  mill  

8f<2  00 

Do  

June  5 

A t the  bridge 

1,800.  00 
752.  30 

Do  

26 

Near  McClure’s  ..  

Augley’s  (or  Ogley’s)  Creek.. 

May  1 

At  Callaghan’s  mill 

10.  80 

bo 

June  16 

At  its  mouth  

9.  50 

Do 

May  21 
June  26 

do 

50.  00 

Do 

do 

60  00 

Howard’s  Creek 

May  16 
21 

do - - _ . - . . _ 

40.  40 

Do 

do 

370.  00 

Do 

21 

Below  Dickson 's  Run  . 

49.  30 

Do 

21 

Near  its  mouth  . . ... 

184  60 

Do  

25 

do 

180.  00 

Do  

June  6 

do  . ..  . 

360.  00 

Do 

7 

Near  Little  D ckson's 

67.  60 

South  Fork  of  Howard’s  Creek 

May  16 

Near  the  toll-gate 

5.  57 

Do  

22 

do  

80.  00 

Do 

24 

25 

do 

30.  00 

Do 

do __  

26.  00 

Do  

June  19 

do 

27.  00 

Dunlap’s  Creek 

May  17 
17 

Above  Colonel  Crow’s  . 

41.  50 

Do 

Below  Crow’s  mill 

52.  90 

Do 

19 

21 

At  its  mouth 

79.  30 

Do 

Below  Sqnii’e  Bishop’s . .. 

323.  02 

Do 

June  .5 

Below  A ugley’.s  tb’eek 

50.  00 

Do 

16 

do  

19.  80 

Potts’s  Creek 

May  19 
23 

At  its  mouth 

8.5.  10 

Mill  Creek  

do  

142.  72 

Dickson’s  Kun 

24 

Near  its  junction  with  Howard's  Creek  

31.  00 

Spring  Creek 

27 

At  Burr’s  mill  .... 

56.  00 

Locust  Creek  

27 

Near  its  junction  with  Greenbrier  Riv'er 

84.  00. 

Anthony’s  Creek 

J une  27 

One  mile  below  Wiley’s,  and  near  the  intersec- 
tion of  the  feeder -line,  cC-c. 

433. 10 

Note. — All  the  streams  ruentioned  ia  the  f.tres'dng  tables  were  measured  by  means  of  a float,  with 
the  exception  of  Dunlap’s  Creek,  which,  on  the  10th  and  ITtb  days  of  Aujiust,  was  measured  by  means 
of  a waste-wier  or  dam.  At  mills,  the  method  prescribed  for  measuring  by  means  of  orifices  lias  geu- 
erally  been  adopted. 

The  quantity  of  water  given  in  the  fourth  culurans  of  the  tables  is  expressed  in  cubic  feet  per  second. 


796 


REPORT  OF  THE  CHIEF  OF  ENGINEERS. 


Table  III. — Of  the  qnatitiiy  of  water  found  in  the  streams  on  a proposed  route  for  the  James 
JUrer  and  Kanawha  Canal,  in  the  vicinity  of  Huntersville,  in  the  county  of  rocuhonias, 
Virginia,  (May  and  June,  18‘27.) 


Name  of  stream  measured. 

When 

measured. 

Where  measured. 

Discharge 
of  water 
in  cubic 
feet. 

Greenbrier  River 

Do 

May  ‘29 
June  2 

Below  the  mouth  of  Knapp’s  Creek 

Seven  miles  above  Ihe  mouth  of  Deer  Creek 

2,  400 
420 

Do  

10 

Ten  miles  below  mouth  of  Knapp's  Creek 

432 

West  Fork  Greenbrier  River 

2.5 

At  its  iunction  with  East  Fork  Gieenbrier  River 

777 

East  Fork  Gieenbrier  River . . 

25 

At  its  iunction  with  West  Fork  Greenbrier  Rivei 

220 

Knapp’s  Creek 

May  29 

:u 

Near  Huntersville  

156.  9 

Do 

Above  the  mouth  of  Sugar-Tree  Creek 

1.5.0 

Do  

June  10 

78 

Warm  Spring  Run 

May 

Four  miles  below  Warm  Springs 

28 

Do  

•June  9 

do  

14 

Jackson’s  River 

May  30 

Midway  between  tbe  Warm  Springs  and  the 

448 

Do  

J une  9 

month  of  Little  Back  Creek. 

do 

140 

Big  Back  Creek 

May  30 

Above  the  mouth  of  Little  Back  Creek  

296 

Do  . . 

•June  ic 

do  - 

140 

Little  Back  Creek 

May  31 
'une  10 

At  its  mouth 

50.  6 

Do 

...  do  

20 

Sugar-Tree  Creek 

May  31 

Near  its  mouth 

15 

Sitlington’s  Creek 

31 

Neat— wberi^  a feeder-line  would  strike  it,  &c 

100 

Deer  Creek 

June  1 

Above  Woodle’s  mill 

86 

Do  

19 

...  do  

50 

Camp  Run,  a branch  of  Deer 

1 

At  its  mouth 

11 

Creek. 

Duncan’s  Run,  a branch  of 

1 

do 

10 

Deer  Creek. 

Buffalo  Run,  a branch  of  Deer 

1 

do 

10 

Creek. 

Salisbury  Run,  a branch  of 

1 

do 

11 

Deer  Creek. 

Back  Cieek 

24 

Near  McCloud’s 

200 

Knajip’s  Creek 

19 

Above  the  month  of  Sugar-Tree  Creek 

10 

Six  other  small  runs 

19 

Where  a feeder  would  strike  them,  &c 

16.  00 

I will  now  point  out  the  resources  which  may  he  relied  upon  to  supply  with  water 
the  snnunit-level  and  the  portions  of  canal  on  the  Covin^rou  route  between  the  mouth 
of  Dunlap's  Creek  and  Howard’s  Creek.  It  is  known  Irom  the  surveys  which  have 
been  made  on  this  route  thnt  we  must,  in  a measure,  depend  for  a supply  of  water 
upon  the  following  streams,  viz  : 

Cub.  ft. 


Greenbrier  River,  (minimum  supply,)  8th  September,  1826 42.3 

Greenbrier  River,  (mean  supply,)  1826 67.6 

Anthony’s  Creek,  6th  September,  1826 11.6 

Dunlap’s  Creek,  9th  September,  1826  5.  5 


Besides  the  supply  from  these  streams,  we  can  avail  ourselves  of  a reservoir,  which 
shull  contain  either  13,060,584.9  cubic  yards  or  4,603,040  cubic  yards,  according  to  the 
height  of  the  dam  which  may  be  constructed  at  the  point  where  the  feeder  from  Green- 
brier River  is  taken.  To  show  that  this  supply  will  suffice  to  feed  the  summit-level,  to 
supply  its  lockage,  and  feed,  besides,  the  portion  of  the  canal  contiguous  to  it,  w e have 
made  the  same  suppositions  with  regard  to  this  route  that  ihe  board  for  internal  im- 
provement did  with  regard  to  the  proposed  route  for  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal. 
Suppose,  in  the  fiist  place,  the  navigation  to  be  interrupted  four  months  in  ihe  year, 
viz,  from  the  1st  of  December  to  the  1st  of  A{)ril.  Adopting  67,6  cubic  feet  per  second 
as  the  mean  supply  of  water  afforded  by  Greenbrier  River  hist,  in  the  winter  season, 
at  the  point  w’here  the  feeder  to  the  summit  cou.mences  in  said  stream,  it  w ill  be  found  < 

that  the  larger  reservoir  would  be  filletl  twice  during  the  iufeiruption  of  the  naviga- 
tion, and  the  lesser  leservo  r w<  uld  be  tilled  in  nearly  one-thiid  of  the  time  required 
to  till  the  larger  one.  But  67.6  cubic  feet  per  second  is  certainly  much  less  than  the 
mean  supply  afforded  by  the  Greenbrier  River  in  the  winter  season.  (See  Tables  II 
and  III.)  It  is,  in  fact,  thought  to  be  much  less  than  the  mean  supply  during  the  sea- 
son of  open  navigation. 

So  that,  w hile  the  navigation  continues  open,  upon  this  last  supposition  the  larger 
reservoir  would  bo  filled  at  least  every  two  monttis,  and  the  smaller  reservoir  oftener 
than  opce  per  month  from  Greenbi ier  River  itself.  Now',  in  order  that  we  may  see 
what  influence  evaporation,  &c.,  may  have  ue  on  this  supply,  let  us  make  a computa- 
tion as  to  the  supply  which  may  be  expected  from  rains. 

This,  it  will  be  seen,  besides  making  up  for  evaporation  and  soakages  in  the  reservoir, 


i 


APPENDIX  V. 


797 


and  in  the  feeder  to  the  smnmit-level,  will  leave  a very  large  snpplj’-  which  may  go 
towHid  the  feeding  of  the  snrnniit  and  portions  of  the  canal  contignons  to  it. 

We  shall  take  an  area  of  55  sqnaie  miles,  which  we  su[)pose  to  supply  Greenbrier 
Kiver  with  rain-wuiter.  Tins  area  is  chosen  fioni  an  inspection  of  the  map  of  this  jiart 
of  the  conirry,  from  which  we  find  that  the  sum  of  the  lengths  of  the  streams  trihntary 
to  Greenbrier  River  exceeds  110  miles  ; and,  frosn  a knowledge  of  the  country,  we  know 
the  width  of  tiieir  valleys  to  average  niore  than  half  Ji  mile. 

We  shall  assume  for  the  fall  of  rain  on  this  surface  the  least  quantity  w'hich  fell  from 
the  year  1817  to  1824,  in  the  vicinity  of  Baltimore. 

Tlie  least  quantity  fell  in  1822,  whicli  was  in  the  fall  and  winter,  16.7  inches,  and  for 
the  six  other  months,  12.5  inches;  making,  for  the  \vhole  year,  29.2  inches.  So  it  will 
he  found  that  the  assumed  area  will  receive  during — 


Cubic  yards. 

The  fall  and  winter 78,  hAo,  3h4 

The  sjuing  and  summer ' 59.  ll~,696 

The  whole  year  round 137, 998,  OdO 


From  which  it  will  he  seen  that  the  first  quantity  would  he  six  times  as  much  as 
would  he  necessary  to  fill  the  larger  reservoir  in  the  winter  season;  and  seventeen 
times  as  much  as  would  fill  the  smaller  one;  and  that  the  second  quantity  would  till 
the  larger  reservoir  more  than  four  times  in  the  summer,  and  the  lesser  one  nearly 
thirteen  times.  Now,  what  is  the  evapcu’ation,  soakage,  &c.,  compaied  with  these 
quantities?  Suppose  the  evaporation  to  be  32  inches  [ler  annum,  which  are  equivalent 
on  a surface  equal  to  1 sqna  e yard  to  0.910  cubic  yard.  We  will  apply  this  to  the 
feeder  and  reservoir.  The  feeder,  w'hich  is  about  33f  miles  in  length,  will  have  a sur- 
face, say,  equal  to  about  590,880  square  yards  ; and,  consequently,  the  evayior.ition  on 
it  would  be  equal  to  541,300.8  cnbii;  yards.  Suppose  now  the  soakage  to  be  equal  to 
one  and  a half  times  the  evaporation,  (w'hich  is,  no  doubt,  considering  the  natnie  of 
the  soil  over  which  the  feeder-line  passes,  a snffici'ent  allowance.)  This  last  sn))position 
gives  for  the  evaporation  and  soakage  together,  of  the  feeder,  1,353,252  cubic  yards. 
The  evaporation  of  the  reservoir,  taking  the  larger  one,  whose  surface  would  be  ecjnal 
to  2,508,333.3  square  yards,  wonhl  be  equal  to  2,282,583,303  cubic  yards ; or  the  i-vapora- 
tion  and  soakage  together  equal  to  5,706,458.25  cubic  yards;  making,  for  both  the 
feeder  and  reservoir,  the  evapor^ition  and  siaikage  together  equal  to  6,059,710.25  cubic 
3'ards.  Should  we  double  the  allow'auce  above  made  for  evaporation,  &c.,  it  would  be 
seen  that  it  could  not  even  then  be  compared  with  the  quantity  available  from  rains. 
It  is,  in  fact,  very  trifling,  even  when  compared  \\\  h the  fall  of  rain  dut  iug  the  s|)i  iug 
and  summer  months.  It  should  also  be  recollected  that  we  have  assumed  for  the  fall 
of  rain  the  least  quantity  which  fell  in  the  course  of  a number  of  years  in  a section  of 
the  country  where  the  fall  is  not  to  be  compared  w'ith  that  in  the  elevated  section  of 
countiy  which  we  have  examined. 

I think,  therefore,  that  it  would  be  safe  to  adopt  the  following  as  the  minimum 
supply  of  water  w'hich  can  ever  be  expected  on  the  route  in  question,  and  w hich  will 
suffice  to  feed  the  summit-level  and  portions  of  canal  contiguous  to  it,  viz: 

Cubic  feet 
per  second. 

Greenbrier  River 42.3 

Anthony’s  Ci  eek 5.  5 

Dunlap’s  Creek «...  5.  5 

and  the  supply  of  13,060,584.9  cubic  yards  from  the  reservoir,  (using  the  larger  one.) 

It  will  be  observed  by  reference  to  Table  I that  the  least  quantity  of  w'ater  found  in 
Anthony’s  Creek,  6 miles  from  its  mouth  and  near  where  the  feeder-liile  strikes  it,  is 
11.6  cubic  feet  per  second  ; we  have  assumed  less  than  half  of  it  for  the  minimum 
supply.  A less  quantity  is  also  assumed  for  Dunlap’s  Creek  than  has  ever  yet  been 
found  in  it  at  any  one  point;  one  of  its  tributaries.  Snake  Run,  gave,  on  the  9rh  of 
August,  1826,  the  same  quantity  which  it  will  be  perceiv'ed  is  assumed  for  the  stivam 
itself.  And  it  should  be  recollected  that  the  canal-line  strikes  the  creek  some  distance 
below  the  mouth  of  Snake  Run. 

We  could  no  doubt  avail  ourselves  of  several  time.3  the  quantities  assumed  as  the 
discharge  of  these  streams;  for,  besides  the  actual  quantities  flowing  in  them,  we  can, 
if  necessary,  have  recourse  to  small  reservoirs  on  both  of  them  ; and,  as  reganls  Green- 
brier River,  it  presents  frequent  sites  for  dams  suitable  for  the  formation  of  reservoirs  ; 
and  that,  should  it  be  found  necessary,  one  may,  of  almost  any  height,  be  formed  at  any 
point  above  the  one  chosen  for  the  commencement  of  the  feeder  to  the  summit-level. 

If  necessary-,  reservoirs  might  be  formed  upon  several  of  the  tributary  s. reams  of 
Greenbrier  River,  and  sometimes  upon  streams  tributary  to  them. 

But  to  Hunt  the  supply  to  the  quaniity  above  assumed,  and  calculating  upon  an 
open  navigation  of  eight  months  in  the  y'ear,  it  w'ill  be  found  that  the  monthly  supply 
(adopting  the  larger  reservoir)  will  be  as  follows,  viz:  1,632,573.1  cubic  yards  from  the 


798 


EEPORT  OF  THE  CHIEF  OF  ENGINEERS. 


reservoir,  4,ir>6,790.4  cubic  yards  from  the  Greenbrier  River,  and  1,055,980.8  cubic  yards 
from  Dunlap’s  and  Anthony’s  Creeks,  making  the  whole  supply  equal  to  6,845,344.3 
cubic  yards. 

Tills  monfhly  supply  may  be  disposed  of  after  the'following  manner  ; Considering 
tlie  length  of  the  summit-level,  it  is  probable  that  about  two  hours  would  be  required 
for  a boat  to  pass  from  one  extreme  point  of  it  to  the  other — that  is  to  sav,  it  would 
move  at  the  rate  of  a little  more  than  one  mile  a id  a half  per  hour.  This  would  be 
for  a singlo  boat.  But,  with  a view  to  the  saving  both  time  and  water,  we  will  sup- 
pose the  trade  to  be  carried  on  by  a number  of  boats,  passing  and  repassing  the  differ- 
ent locks  at  the  same  time.  Let  the  number  be  twenty.  But,  as  a greater  length  of 
time  is  required  for  a number  or  train  of  boats  to  pass  the  summit-level  than  for  a single 
one,  we  shall  increase  the  time  assumed  for  the  passag^i  of  a single  one  one-half  for  a 
train — that  is,  we  suppose  it  to  take  three  hours  for  a train  of  20  boats  to  pass  from 
one  end  of  the  summit-level  to  the  other. 

,The  trade  from  the  East  to  the  West,  we  suppose,  would  be  carried  on  in  this  man- 
ner. The  ti  st  tniu  of  twenty  boats  would  leave  the  first  lock  at  the  commencement 
of  the  summit-level,  and  arrive  in  three  hours  afterward  at  the  1 mk  at  the  other  ex- 
tremity of  the  level,  (which  we  shall  here  call  the  second  lock,)  when  it  would  meet  a 
second  train,  having  jiassed  the  second  lock.  This  second  train  would  arrive  in  three 
hours  afterward  at  the  first  lock  and  find  a third  train,  having  passed  duiing  the  pas- 
sage of  the  first  and  second  trains,  and  ready  to  proceed  toward  the  second  lock,  and 
vh’ch  would  arrive  there  in  thr<-e  hours  afterward,  and  find  a fourth  train  Imving 
ascended  t the  summit  and  ready  to  proceed  to  the  first  lock ; and  so  on,  until  the 
whole  five  trains  shall  have  passed  the  summit. 

The  passage  of  these  five  trains,  or  one  hundred  boats,  requiring  fifteen  hours,  may 
be  assumed  as  the  greatest  trade  on  this  part  of  the  canal. 

It  is  readily  seen  that  this  trade  agrees  very  well  with  the  monthly  supply,  for,  at 
the  rate  of  100  boats  per  day,  3.000  might  pass  per  mouth,  and  24  000  during  the  sea- 
son of  open  navigation  ; and  as  the  boats  are  supposed  to  pass  the  locks  alternately, 
one  lock  full  of  water  onlj’  for  each  boat  will  be  required  to  pass  the  summit  level. 
But  to  remove  all  fioubts  as  to  the  adequacy  of  the  monthly  supply,  we  shall  add  half 
a lock-full  for  leakage,  &c.  This  allowance,  supposing  the  size  of  the  locks  the  same 
as  those  contemplated  by  the  board  of  int  rnal  inqirovements  for  the  proposed  Chesa- 
Xieake  and  Ohio  Canal,  will  be  equal  to  623  cubic  yards;  so  that  all  the  boats  which 
W'ould  pass  during  a month  would  require  for  lockage  1,869,000  cubm  yards  of  water, 
which,  when  taken  from  the  monthly  supply,  leaves  4,976,344.3  cubic  yards.  This 
residue  would  supply  the  canal  from  the  mouth  of  Howard’s  Creek  to  the  mouth  of 
Dunlap’s  Creek,  a distance  of  about  33  miles  737  yards,  at  the  rate  of  148,992.:l4  cubic 
yards  per  mile  per  month,  or  93,120.2  cubic  feet  per  miuute,  which  are  equal  to  1,552 
cubic  feet  per  second  per  mile. 

And  for  the  supply  of  the  whole  distance  from  the  mouth  of  Howard’s  Creek  to  the 
mouth  of  Dunlap’s  Creek,  we  sh  >uld  have  considerably  more  than  1|  cubic  feet  per 
second  fier  mile,  should  we  take  into  consideration  the  quantity  which  may  be  had  from 
Howard’s  Creek,  some  distance  above  its  month.  We  speak  now  of  ^ cubic  feet  of 
water  per  second,  exclusive  of  lockage,  and,  if  you  please,  of  evaporation,  soakage,  &c. 
It  is  thimghl.,  however,  to  be  a sufficiency,  absorption,  evaporation,  &c.,  included.  We 
might  assure  ourselves  of  this  fact  immediately  by  making  a comparison  between  this 
supply  and  the  different  supplies  which  answer  for  many  of  the  canals  constructed  in 
France  and  elsewhere.  Bu  1 shall  merely  advert  to  the  fact  that,  from  experiments 
which  havb  been  made  upon  the  New  York  canal  and  others  which  have  been  con- 
structed in  this  country,  it  has  been  ascertained  that  about  100  cubic  feet  of  water  per 
minute  per  mile  oniy  are  requisite  for  navigating  an  ordinary  canal  in  this  countiy, 
lockage  included. 

Now,  if  we  ap])ly  this  to  the  James  Rtver  and  Kanawha  Canal,  on  a distance  of  about 
33  miles  737  yards,  and  deduct  1.869,000  cubic  yards,  which  we  have  allowed  for  lock- 
age, we  shall  find  that  there  will  be  a much  smaller  quantity  left  (and  which  would 
supjily  the  canal)  than  we  can  calculate  upon  from  Greenbrier  River,  Anthony’s  and 
Dunlap’s  Creeks,  and  the  reservoir  which  would  be  formed  ou  the  Greenbrier.  The 
foregoing  calculations  were  made  from  data  obtained  from  the  experimental  surveys 
made  in  1826.  Subsequent  examinations  develop  facts  which  effect  a slight  change  in 
them.  By  the  recent  surveys  which  have  been  made  it  appears  that  the  feeder- line, 
from  Greenbrier  River  to  t e summit-level,  can  be  shortened  about  2 miles,  making 
the  entire  length  of  iti  o;  ly  31  miles  130  yaids. 

The  length  of  the  summit-level  is  4 miles  789  yards,  and  'his  distance  from  its  east- 
ern extremity  to  the  point  where  the  canal  is  fed  by  Dunlap’s  Creek  is  2 miles  1,718 
yards.  I he  distance  from  thence  to  the  mouth  of  the  cretk,  16  miles  115  yards.  The 
di-tance  from  the  point  where  the  feeder-line  strikes  the  summit-level  to  the  point 
where  the  canal  is  fed  by  Howard’s  Creek  is  3 miles  1,175  yards,  and  from  thence  to 
the  mouth  of  the  creek,  4 miles  740  yards,  making  the  length  of  the  canal,  from  the 
mouth  of  Howard’s  Creek  to  the  mouth  of  Dunlap’s  Creek,  about  31  miles  1,017  yards. 


APPENDIX  V. 


799 


An  alteration  lias  been  made  in  the  situation  of  the  dam  for  the  reservoir  on  Green- 
brier River.  This  dam,  thonjijh  supposed  to  be  as  high  as  the  dam  of  the  larger  reser- 
voir first  calculated  upon,  is  found  to  give  a reservoir  with  a prism  of  water  equal  to 
only  8,57S,14d  cubic  yards,  but  which,  when  compared  with  the  former  larger  reservoir, 
is  found  to  have  a much  smaller  than  a proportional  surface  exposed  to  evaporation. 

The  surface  of  this  reservoir  is  equal  to  532,666  square  yards,  and  the  evaporation 
from  it  would  be  equal  to  484,726.06  cubic  yards.  If  to  this  quantity,  after  making  a 
due  allowance  for  soakag-*,  we  add  the  evaporation  and  soakageof  the  feeder-line,  and 
subtract  the  sum  thereof  from  the  quantity  of  water  available  from  rains,  the  residue 
would  still  be  more  than  sufficient  to  611  the  ado))t(id  reservoir  once  per  monUi.  Be- 
sides, it  is  probable  that  the  reservoir  would  be  filled  once  per  month  the  year  round 
from  Greenbrier  River.  The  quantity  (67.6  cubic  feet)  hrst  assumed  as  the  mean  sup- 
ply of  the  river  would  611  it  once  in  le  s than  every  forty  days.  So,  to  feed  the  sum- 
mit-l  'vel  and  portions  of  the  canal  between  its  extremities  and  Dunlap’s  and  Howard’s 
Creeks,  wm  may,  with  safe>^y,  calculate  upon  the  contents  of  a reservoir  formed  in 
Greenbrier  River,  and  the  least  quantities  of  water  afforded  by  Greenbrier  River,  An- 
thony’s Creek,  Howard’s  and  Dunlap’s  Creeks. 

The  supply  would  be  as  follows:  Calculating  upon  an  open  navigation  of  eight 
months  in  the  year,  the  reservoir  formed  in  Greenbrier  River  would  give  a monthly 
supply  of  1,072,268.5  cubic  yards.  And  from  Gret-nbiier  River,  containing  42.3  cubic 
feet  per  second  ; Anthony’s  Creek.  5.5  cubic  feet  per  second  ; Howard’s  Creek,  6.8  cubic 
fret  per  second ; and  Dunlap’s  Creek,  5.5  cubic  feer,  per  second,  we  should  have  a monthly 
supply  of  5,769,552.6  cubic  yards.  If  from  these  supplies  we  subtract  the  lockage  for 
3,000  boats  per  month,  it  will  be  seen  that  the  residue  wouhl  feed  the  entire  canal  from 
the  mouth  of  Howard’s  Creek  to  the  mouth  of  Dunlap’s  Creek  at  the  rate  of  something 
like  157,517  cubic  yards  per  mile  per  month,  which  are,  exclusive  of  lockage,  more  than 
sufficient  for  that  ])urpose,  all  other  losses  included. 

The  canal  may  be  fed  in  this  manner  : Frohi  Greenbrier  River  the  reservoir  formed 
in  it,  and  Anthony’s  Creek,  aftording  togei  her  a monthly  supply  of  5,661,068.5  cubic 
yards  per  mile.  From  this  quantity  there  will  be  left,  after  feeding  the  summit-level 
and  the  portion  of  canal  between  its  eastern  extretnity  and  the  mouth  of  Dunlap’s 
Creek,  (a  distance  of  about  23^  miles,)  about  618,519  cubic  yards  p r month,  that  is, 
after  deducting  lockage  for  both  extremities  of  the  summit-level  and  taking  into  con- 
sideration a monthly  supply  of  about  528,000  cubic  yards  afforded  by  Dunlap’s  Creek 
more  than  16  miles  from  its  mouth.  Now,  this  remaining  supply  of  618,519  cubic  yards 
per  mile,  &c  , together  with  a supply  of  652,800  cubic  yards  per  mile  per  momh  from 
Howard’s  Creek,  more  than  4 miles  from  its  mouth,  will  feed  the  remaining  portion  of 
the  canal  from  the  western  extremity  of  the  summit-level  to  the  mouth  of  Howard’s 
Creek,  a distance  of  about  8 miles. 

If  we  found  the  calculations  upon  the  least  quantities  of  w^ater  which  have  yet 
been  found  to  flow  in  the  streams  U'Cd  on  this  route,  at  the  points  where  it  is  prob- 
able they  would  be  brought  into  requisition  to  fe-d  the  canal,  it  will  be  seen  that  the 
fall  of  rain-water  need  not  be  so  much  relied  upon.  For  instance,  we  have  Greenbrier 
River,  containing  46.72  cubic  feet  per  second,  (see  T.b.  1;)  Anthony’s  Creek,  11.50 
cubic  feet  per  second  ; Howard’s  Creek,  6.8;i  cubic  feet  per  second;  and  Dunlap’s  Creek, 
9.43  cubic  feet  per  second  ; giving  alto  ether  a monthly  supi)ly  of  7,150,080  cubic  yards. 
If  to  this  supply  we  add  the  monthly  sui)ply  from  the  reservoir,  which  we  supposed 
filled  from  Greenbrier  River  during  the  interrupti  »n  of  the  navigation,  and  make  a 
deduction  for  lockage,  there  will  remain  a monthly  supply  of  6,353,348.5  cubic  yards, 
which  would  supply  the  canal  under  consideration  at  the  rate  of  194,581.2  cubic  yards 
per  mile  per  month,  which  are,  at  least,  more  than  half  a cubic  foot  per  second  per 
mile  more  than  is  necessary  for  that  purpose ; and  which,  together  with  a small  quan- 
tity of  rain-water,  would  supply  the  lo.sses  of  the  feeder,  &c. 

Before  coiiclud  ng,  we  will  make  one  other  supposition.  Suppose  an  open  naviga- 
tion of  nine  months  in  the  year;  and  suppose  the  fe^^der  from  Greenbrier  River  to  the 
summir-level,  and  the  canal  from  the  mouth  of  Howard’s  Creek  to  the  mouth  of  Dunlap’s 
Creek,  to  lose  each  its  prism  of  water  pnr  month  by  evaporation  and  filtration,  and 
allow  1,454, 178.  H cubic  yards  for  the  leakage  and  evaporation  of  the  reservoir,  (sup})os- 
ing  the  former  to  be  twice  the  latter,)  and  making  a due  allowance  for  lockage,  we  shall 
have,  during  an  open  navigation  of  nine  months,  all  htsses  t^qtial  to  about  32,962,494.18 
cubic  yards.  Now,  if  we  compare  this  with  the  fall  of  raineven  during  the  spring  and  sum- 
mer, there  will  remain  a monthly  supply  of  2,906,133.53  cubic  yards  of  water,  which 
may  go  toward  supiilying  the  canal.  That  is  to  say,  we  should  have  lor  the  supply  of 
the  canal,  including  running  water,  a monthly  supply  of  8,771,933.53  cubic  yards,  after 
having  made  good  all  losses  ; which  is  twice  as  much  as  is  necessary.  I shall  finish 
these  remarks  by  repeating,  that,  when  we  take  into  consideration  the  many  favorable 
sites  for  darns,  suitable  for  the  formation  of  reservoirs  on  Greenbrier  River  and  else- 
where, we  can  never  dread  an  insufficiency  of  water  for  the  supply  of  a canal  on  this 
route.  In  addition  to  this  fact,  the  rela  ive  situation  of  Cheat  River  with  ivgard  to 
Greenbrier  River,  by  which,  in  case  of  any  unexpected  casualty,  a feeder,  with  a suf- 


800 


REPORT  OF  THE  CHIEF  OF  ENGINEERS. 


ficient  supply  of  water  for  a canal,  inifrlit  be  brought  from  thence  to  the  Greenbrier 
River,  leaves  no  doubt  of  the  practicability  of  a canal  comnmnicatiou  between  the 
head- waters  of  Janies  River  and  the  Kanawha. 

The  next  nhiect  which  occu|)ied  niy  attention  was  the  examination  of  a proposed 
route  for  the  James  and  Kanawha  Canal,  by  way  of  one  of  tlie  head  branches  - f Cra  g’s 
Creek,  a tributary  to  Jackson’s  River,  and  Sinking  Creek,  a tributary  to  the  Kanawha. 
I deem  it  nunecessary  to  enter  into  a minute  descri[)tion  of  the  country  along  this 
route,  as  I shall  be  able  to  show  in  a very  few  words  that  there  is  not  a sufficient  supjily 
of  water  for  a canal.  To  supply  the  summit-level  of  a canal  on  this  route  we  should 
have  to  rely  almost  altogether  on  John’s  Creek,  a branch  of  Craig’s  Creek,  which  gave 
on  the  1st  September,  lb2(),  at  i s month,  a discharge  of  water  equal  to  only  10.4  cubic 
feet  per  second,  which  is  not  perhaps  the  minimum  supply  during  the  driest  season  of 
the  year.  As  regards  Sinking  Creek,  we  might  often  during  the  dry  season  expect  to 
find  it,  if  not  dry,  almost  so.  Relying  then  principally  on  John’s  Creek,  we  should 
have  a monthly  supply  of  water  which  would  not  Mittice  for  lockage  alone.  Allowing 
the  same  quantity  of  water  for  lockaiJe  on  this  route  as  we  did  on  theCoving  on  route, 
we  would  want  an  additional  quantity  of  391, 5b0  cubic  yards  per  month  for  lockage. 
(Referred  to  on  p.  777.) 

The  quantity  of  water  afforded  by  John’s  Creek,  (15.4  cubic  feet  per  second,)  and  the 
quantity  afforded  by  Sinking  Cr-ek,  (.49  cubic  feet,)  together  equal  to  15.89  cubic  feet 
per  second,  would  have  to  supply  a summit-level  and  |)ortions  of  canal,  together  equal 
to,  at  least,  from  30  to  36  miles.  Now,  at  the  rate  (ff  1^  cubic  feet  per  second,  it  is 
readi  y seen  that  the  above  quantity  would  only  feed  a canal  something  like  10  miles, 
exclusive  of  lockage. 

In  a word,  the  great  additional  supply  of  water  wanted  for  a canal  by  this  route  can 
never  be  had,  for  we  can  alone  expect  it  trorn  reservoirs,  and  though  one  or  two  might 
be  f -rrned  on  the  route  they  could  be  but  small. 

A canal  by  this  route,  even  if  there  was  a sufficient  supply  of  water,  would  have 
nothing  to  recommend  it,  for  we  would  certainly  have  a very  long  tunnel  on  it,  and 
that,  too,  over  an  elevati  d summit-level. 

The  foregoing  remarks  would  apply  equally  as  well  to  any  route  by  the  way  of  Potts’s 
Creek,  &c. 

The  next  examination  which  I made,  agreeably  to  the  instructions  received  from  you, 
was  of  the  country  between  the  head  luauches  of  Jackson’s  River  and  Greenbrier  River, 
in  the  vicinity  of  "Huntersville  in  Pocahontas  County. 

My  attenti  n was  particularly  directed  to  the  ascertaining  of  the  fact  ‘^whether  or 
not  the  Greenbrier  River,  near  the  mouth  of  Knapp’s  Creek,  approached  sufficiently 
near  to  Jackson’s  River  or  some  of  its  branches  ; and  whether  or  not  the  dividing  ridge 
bei  ween  those  str«*ams  was  sufficiently  depressed  to  admit  of  a connection  between, 
them  by  means  of  a canal  with  ut  a tunnel.” 

There  are,  it  is  true,  several  depressions  in  the  Alleghany  Mountains,  or  dividing 
ridge  betw'een  the  eastern  and  western  waters,  in  the  county  of  Pocahontas.  Tuece  is 
one  7 or  8 miles  from  Huntersville,  between  the  head- waters  of  Knapp’s  Cre  k and  Ldtle 
Back  Creek;  and  another  still  higher  up,  between  the  head-waters  of  the  Sugar  Tree 
Creek,  a branch  of  Knapp’s  Creek,  and  Big  Back  Creek,  a branch  of  .Jackson’s  River. 

But  the  most  considerable  one  in  the  mountain  is  where  the  road  from  Huutersville 
to  Warm  Si)riugs,  in  Bath  County,  crosses  it ; a communication  might  be  made  be- 
tween Knapp’s  Cieek  and  Back  Creek  through  this  gap  perhai)S  without  a tunnel,  or, 
if  with  one,  a very  short  one.  But  for  a sufficient  supply  of  water  for  a canal  between 
those  streams,  we  should  have  to  resort  to  a long  feeder  from  Greenbrier  River,  and 
one,  too,  perhaps,  with  one  or  tw  > tunnels. 

Table  HI  shows  the  quantity  of  water  afforded  by  the  different  streams  in  this  sec- 
tion of  the  country  at  the  time  I made  the  examination  of  it.  Bitt  we  could  not 
depend  on  anything  like  those  quantities  during  the  greater  portion  of  the  summer 
season. 

From  a mere  examination  of  the  table  it  will  be  seen  that  at  the  time  the  different 
streams  were  measured  there  was  a sup[)ly  of  water  afforded  by  them  more  than  neces- 
sary to  effect  the  d sired  communication.  But  having  since  seen  many  of  these  streams 
whilst  employed  upon  the  examination  of  a route  for  the  Baltimore  and  Ohio  Railroad, 
(during  the  dry  season,)  I am  fearful  there  could  not  be  had  at  all  seasons  of  the  year 
a sufficient  supply  of  water  for  a canal  communication  by  this  route.  But  even  if 
there  could  be  found  a sufficient  supply,  it  would  not  then  compare  with  the  route 
from  Covington  to  the  mouth  of  Howard’s  Creek,  as  will  be  plainly  seen  from  the  fol- 
lowing facts  : On  this  route  the  length  of  canal  would  be  greater,  by  at  least  100  miles, 
than  by  the  Covington  route;  that  is  to  say,  the  distance  (following  the  probable 
direction  for  the  location  of  a canal)  from  the  Greenbrier  Bridge  to  Huutersville,  on 
Knapp’s  Creek,  and  from  thence  over  the  dividing  ridge,  and  down  Back  Creek,  &.c., 
to  Covington  would  be  at  least  100  miles,  and  probably  more. 

1|[ffie  fall  of  the  ground  from  the  western  extremity  of  the  summit-level  of  this  route 
to  (the  Greenbrier  Bridge,  near  the  mouth  of  Howard’s  Creek,  is  about  1,500  feot.  So 


APPENDIX  Y. 


801 


'iy  tbe  fall  from  the  eastern  extremity  of  Pocahontas  snmmit  to  the  month 
Creek  is  equal  to  1,970  feet,  making  2,552  feet  more  of  lockage  on  the  Poca- 


to  make  a comparison  between  the  lockage  on  this  route  and  that  on  the  Covington 
rente,  wti  have  the  amount  of  lockage  from  the  western  extremity  of  the  summit-level 
on  Covington  route  to  the  mouth  of  Howard’s  Creek  equal  to  224  feet,  and  the 
ar^uunt  ( f ''ockage  from  the  eastern  extremity  of  said  summit-level  to  the  mouth  of 
Dunlap’s  C.  i k equal  to  694  feet,  making  the  amount  of  lockage  for  the  entire  distance 
from  theAioulh  of  How.ard’s  Creek  to  the  mouth  of  Dunlap’s  Creek  equal  to  918  feet; 
conseqn^ 

ofDun®^* 

hontasM^dc  than  on  the  Covington  route 

The  Weat  additional  number  of  aqueducts  which  would  be  required  on  this  route 
would  Flake  the  cost  of  its  construction  very  great  when  compared  with  the  Coving- 
ton r.  u'le.  In  the  distance  from  the  mouth  of  Howard’s  Creek  to  the  mouth  of  Knapp’s 
^pursuing  either  side  of  Greenbrier  River,  it  would  be  found  necessary  to  cross 
Ho  iO  of  the  tributary  streams  of  the  Greenbrier;  and,  owing  to  the  frequent 
^oiis  in  the  Greenbrier  River  itself,  it  is  probable  that  it  would  be  found  neces- 
b cross  it  four  or  five  times  in  some  instances  to  save  distance,  and  in  others  to 
e^icountcriug  bad  ground,  &c.  The  same  remarks  would  apply  to  Jackson’s 
^^o,  without  a tunnel  and  with  a sufficient  supply  of  water,  I am  of  opinion 
'thr.  : .ealiontas  route  could  have  no  advantages  over  the  Covington  route. 

^Vill  liiow  conclude  by  making  some  general  remarks  as  to  the  formation  of  the 
iltry  w'bich  we  have  examined  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  the  practicability  of 
I'lnection  between  Greenbrier  and  Jackson’s  Rivers.  The  rocks  in  the  vicinity  of  the 
filing  rirlge  between  these  streams  are  of  the  transition  class,  and  consist  principally 
/andstone  and  limestone.  Horustone  and  other  rocks  arc  sometimes  met  with,  but 
^'ery  sruaU  quantities.  Of  the  rocks  above  mentioned,  sandstone  is  perhaps  the  most 
/edominant  Compact  limestone,  (blue,)  however,  occur  in  considerable  quantities 
f,nough  "it  the  wlioU'  district,  and  may  be  Uvsed  either  as  a budding-stone  or  for  the 
irpose  i ffii  uishing  ordinary  lime  The  most  considerable  deposit  of  limestoue  which 
ljav<'  '‘Cen  u tltis  section  is  a zone  or  belt  which  passes  trom  north  to  south  through 
[•wislmrg,  Union,  &c.,  and  which  we  have  traced  from  its  outgoings  or  appearances 
] the  surface  of  the  earth  for  the  distance  of  20  to  30  miles;  its  width  hardly  ever 
Iceeds  1.  Mj  ile.  Connected  with  this  deposit  of  limestone  for  a number  of  miles  is  one 

found  on  most  of  the  streams  east  and  west  of  the  dividing  ridge,  viz, 
[tiver,  on  Craig’s  Creek,  on  Dunlap’s  Creek,  and  on  Augley’s  Creek.  In  a 
Me  country,  from  Covington  to  the  Sweet  Springs,  abounds  in  limestone. 
'Sinking  (jreek,  on  Knapp’s  Creek  ; on  Anthony’s  Creek  we  generally  find 
fn  Greenbrier  River,  above  the  bridge,  we  sometimes  meet  with  limestone, 
formation  is  of  sandstone. 

here  be  remarked  that  the  feeder-line  from  Greenbrier  River  to  the  sum- 
seldom  intersect  limestone  formations,  although  we  frequently  findiime- 
'icinity  of  the  Greenbrier,  on  either  side,  as  high  up  as  Huntersville,  in 

suitable  for  constructions,  is  found  on  both  sides  of  Greenbrier  River,  near 
of  this  stone,  the  piers  of  the  bridge  are  constructed. 

id  the  country,  particularly  between  Howard’s  Creek  and  Crow’s,  on  Dun- 
in  the  direction  of  the  proposed  tunnel  betw^eeu  those  streams,  and  came 
fiusion  that,  in  the  construction  of  the  tunnel  for  the  jiriucipal  part  of  the 
jgh  the  ridge,  solid  sandstone  would  be  met  with. 

jeuever  th-s  was  not  the  case,  whieh  would  probably  be  in  the  commencement 
^ nation  of  the  tunnel,  we  should  probably  encounter  argillaceous  slate  and 
3 with  a slaty  structure. 

The  i G throughout  the  whole  section  of  country  examined  is  generally  very  good, 
but  vai’/'s  in  quality  in  a measure  with  the  different  kinds  of  rock  mot  with,  lime- 
stone sAil  being  bet  ter  than  sandy  soil. 

CoaUand  iron  ores  are  the  only  mineral  productions  discovered  worthy  of  much  notice. 
Coal  Mas  been  discovered  some  few  miles  from  the  bridge  on  Greenbrier  River  and 
will  probablj^  be  found  elsewhere,  as  we  have  frequently  observed  formations  with 
which  it  is  almost  always  associated.  We  have  noticed  the  appearance  of  it  particularly 
betweeui  the  Greenbrier  Bridge  and  Lewisbnrg.  We  have  not,  however,  seen  any  s^jeci- 
meiis  of  a good  quality. 

This  section  of  eountry  is,  unquestionably,  the  repository  of  numerous  beds  or  de- 
posits o'liron  ore.  We  are  assured  of  this  fact  by  its  appearance  in  several  places.  A 
cousidefiVde  lead  of  it  is  found  on  John’s  Creek,  near  New  Castle.  It  also  abounds  on 
Dunlap’s  Creek  and  its  branches,  in  the  neighborhood  of  Covington,  and  will,  no  doubt, 
be  frequently  met  with  elsewhere. 

The  ore. on  Dunlap’s  Creek  is  the  red  oxide  and  is  considered  of  a most  excellent 
quality. 

All  of  which  I have  the  honor  respectfully  to  submit,  &c. 

John  N.  Dii.latiukty, 

Lieutenant  First  Regiment  AriUlerg,  on  Topograi)lucal  Duty. 


51  E 


802 


EEPORT 


OF  TflE  CHIEF  OF  ENGINEERS. 


REPORTS  ON  IMPROVEMENT  OF  THE  GREAT  KANAWHA  RIVER  BY  LOCKS  AND  DAMS,  BY  „ 

MR.  JOHN  A.  BYERS.  \ 

1. 

Wingfield,  Fehrnary  ^ 18G?!f. 

Dear  Sir  : I have  sent  to  yonr  address  an  estimate  of  the  cost  of  imp  the 

Kanawha  River  by  locks  and  dams  from  Loup  Creek  to  the  Ohio  River.  s 

I have  also  sent  an  estimate  for  an  improvement  by  locks  and  dams  froin  I Creek 
to  Brownstown  and  from  thence  down  by  low  dams  at  the  head  of  the  sL  i,  side- 
canals  along  at  locks  at  the  foot  of  the  shoals,  each  of  these  plans  to  seciu  5 feet 
depth  of  water  for  navigation. 

In  planning  any  system  of  works  for  the  improvement  of  a water-conrec,  ^ ■■;rd 
should  be  had  to  the  height  and  character  of  its  floods,  and  the  materials  coitl  ig 
the  banks  and  bed  of  its  stream. 

Passing  by  occas  onal  floods  of  from  50  to  00  feet  as  beyond  any  practical  cow. 
tion,  the  Kanawha  River  is  generally  visited  by  one  to  several  tides  of  from  DO 
feet  every  year. 

These  floods  sometimes  occur  when  New  River  for  150  miles,  Greenbrier  for  00  n 
Gauley  Ri%'er  for  about  the  same  distance,  are  in  many  parts  covered  with  $kroi\ 
these  rivers  having  an  average  fall  of  10  feet  to  the  mile.  New  River,  taking  it 
in  the  warmer  climate  of  North  Carolina,  is  sometimes  flooded  by  rains  fal  ling 
while  it  remains  dry  and  cold  west  of  the  Alleghanies.  The  effect  under  th  ese  cir 
stances  is  to  drive  the  ice  along,  accnmnlating  as  it  goes,  until  it  is  throwi;.  down  ^ 
the  Kanawha  River  in  a compact  mass,  and  rolled  along  the  bottom  of  tbe^  river,  i'oi 
ing  dams  from  shoal  to  shoal,  the  destrncrive  power  of  which  should  not  b e overlookt 
Immense  quantities  of  drift  often  carried  with  the  flood  even  trees  of  the  largest  siz 
with  the  roots  attached  and  dragging  on  the  bed  of  the  river. 

The  banks  of  the  Kanawha  River  range  from  40  to  60  feet  above  low  waier,  and  p 
made  up  of  clay,  sand,  and  vegetable  mold  mixed  in  every  proportion.  The  river -b 
is  nearly  everywhere  covered  with  a close  and  strong  pavement  of  bowlders  tilled 
between  with  small  stones  and  gravel. 

Passing  below  this  rocky  pavement,  which  is  from  3 to  5 feet  in  thick 
alternating  strata  of  gravel  and  sand,  of  pure  sand,  blue  clay,  and  quick 
generally  far  below  the  levels  required  for  foundations. 

Solid  rock  is  exposed  at  Johnsou^s  and  Red  House  Shoals  at  a few  i 
water,  extending  only  across  a portion  of  the  river,  where  it  sinks  abru; 
inaccessible  for  building  upon. 

I found  solid  rock  at  Peeled  Maple  and  Arbuckle  Shoals  along  both  short’ 
at  a very  uniform  depth  of  feet  below  the  surface  of  low  %vater,  and  Ij 
rock  will  be  found  in  other  places  along  the  shallow  reaches  of  the  river;’ 

Considering  the  character  of  the  river  as  above  described,  I have  estim:; 
ing  entirely  on  artifleial  foundations.  The  walls  of  the  locks,  dams,  ai; 
are  to  be  of  masonry  laid  in  hydraulic  cement,  the  materials  and  workm 
the  best  of  its  kind,  with  no  expenditure  merely  for  the  sake  of  appearai\ 
prices  applied,  except  for  mortared  masonry,  are  prices  now  paid  for  simi. 
progress  on  Coal  River. 

In  the  estimate  you  will  notice  what  may  be  considered  a large  sum  for  o' 

&-C.,  but,  considering  all  the  difficulties  to  be  encountered,  I cannot  believe 
materially  in  excess. 

Coffer-dams  will  be  necessary  to  the  proper  execution  of  the  w’orke,  and 
be  carried  4 to  6 feet  above  the  ordinary  low  water,  so  as  to  render  all  tne 
season  for  founding  the  locks  and  dams  available  by  being  above  the  ordinal 
floods. 

It  must  be  thought  of,  that,  while  these  locks  and  dams  are  in  progress,  1h^  

tion  of  the  river  will  be  often  obstructed  and  cccasionally  suspended.  To  eecnomlze 
these  difficulties  the  work  will  have  to  be  pressed,  so  as  to  shorten  the  obstrueJion  to 
navigation,  by  working  night  and  day,  all  tending  to  increase  the  cost  of  Ih.e  .vork 


sh'  uld  ' 
.'.ilding' 
i)U  miner 


ESTIMATE  SHOWING  THE  COST  OF  IMPROVING  THE  KANAWHA  RIVER  FROM  LilFP  CREEK 

TO  THE  OHIO  RIVER, 

By  nioriared-masonry  locks  and  dams. 


12  locks,  at  $68,077  $816, 024 

12  dams,  at  $74,179  r:90,  i i8 

Channels  of  approach  to  the  locks 100, 000 

Coffer-dams,  pumping,  &c 60,000 


1.867,072 


